From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GA6iT-0000Wo-G6 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:08:29 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k77F7Xsa009373; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:07:33 GMT Received: from SRV-EXCHANGE.AUTOonline.local (port-195-158-141-68.static.isionline-dialin.de [195.158.141.68]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k77F5ISx021239 for ; Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:05:19 GMT Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: AW: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 17:04:15 +0200 Message-ID: <7B97065F451A23458ED0C63B4CA5A2EA7C4A6F@SRV-EXCHANGE.AUTOonline.local> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for advanced useflag-syntax thread-index: Aca6LNwC6GXUikRSRtKKJs3hwTWHhwAA7N+Q From: "Noack, Sebastian" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by robin.gentoo.org id k77F5ISx021239 X-Archives-Salt: f2ace67e-9b24-4fb9-9fad-e77a8345630f X-Archives-Hash: 2c6a15faf3e8e58c08f493a928f55999 > > > Well, I don't consider reducing complexity "frivolous" ;-o > > > > Which reduction for which complexity? Do you want to bring everyone's > > systems to a grinding halt, just because you can't understand the > > "complexity" of useflags. > > I just want to keep things simple. We're talking about introducing > new (additional) logic. Is a need to have dozens of lines in your /etc/portage/package.use a simple approach? Maybe it is, if for you, simplicity means only "less number of lines of code in the core of the application". But wasn't you the one who told me that quantity isn't the same like complexity? Well you could say that only source code and scripts contain logic and therefore numbers of lines in the config files doesn't means complexity, but what do I do by the config files of portage actually? I use them for example to instruct portage to enable useflag A but not for ebuild and useflag B but just for ebuild b. Do you claim that this is no logic? > Rember: we started with the thesis, "grandma wants graphical > frontends whereever possible". This is in fact not an technical > issue, instead a matter of personal taste, or lets say, an individual > system configuration. Grandma wants to click, okay, so she should > use graphical applications. She's not interested what sits behind, > she just wants to have a buch of applications. And she also doesn't > wann have anything to do with emerge and useflags. She just wants > to have a choice between a bunch of end-user applications. > That's the job of an Grandma-(sub-)distro. That was never the point where "we" started. That was just the point, you used to confuse this discussion. The grandma scenario should just be a funny example for a requirement of such a advanced portage syntax I could really need on my own systems and I'm not female, but male and not 80 but 18 years old. ;) I know that my proposed syntax isn't a perfect solution. But I think the current state of portage isn't a perfect solution, too. And I hoped when I started this thread, that we will find together a good solution. Best Regards Sebastian Noack -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list