From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.105.134.102] (helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DiTt7-00002M-20 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:08:45 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j5F96MiY007041; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:06:22 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j5F93DKi030245 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:03:13 GMT Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DiToW-0006YU-3C for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:04:00 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1DiTj8-00081N-JH for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:58:26 +0200 Received: from ip68-230-66-193.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.230.66.193]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:58:26 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-230-66-193.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:58:26 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: use.force support Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 02:03:21 -0700 Organization: Sometimes Message-ID: References: <20050613144048.GB4585@lightning.stealer.net> <1118703403.28392.5.camel@localhost> <20050615012635.GJ4585@lightning.stealer.net> <42AF9765.8090800@gentoo.org> 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=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-66-193.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table) Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 4ff5e278-d150-4b6a-a5c2-7478be859741 X-Archives-Hash: 77a58fd3ed9b427fb31008292c43fb3f Donnie Berkholz posted <42AF9765.8090800@gentoo.org>, excerpted below, on Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:50:13 -0700: > Sven Wegener wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:56:43PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: >> >>>I'm in favor of this. Would you mind calling it package.autouse, >>>package.use.auto or are you set on .force? >> >> As Mike already wrote those names are too confusing with the automatic >> activated USE flags. We already had some suggestions in this thread, but >> none of them actually matched the purpose of the file. At least in my >> opinion. use.force matches it best, but the "force" part is a quite hard >> term. How about use.profile? Because these USE flags are activated or >> needed by the profile. > > How about use.required, since they're required by the profile? Watching the debate so far, I'd say use.lock sounds simplest and most descriptive to me, with use.required a close second, only because of the longer extension (.lock is simpler/shorter than .required). This from the perspective of one who regularly finds himself posting explanations of various portage workings, both on the amd64 list, and on my ISP's own list (there's a guy who's just trying out Gentoo, coming from FreeBSD -- he has some dev experience on FBSD, so he's potentially an asset to both the FreeBSD herd and the amd64 arch, some time down the road, tho he's so far not seemed to interested in the Gentoo on FBSD stuff). From an explainer's perspective, I agree that .force sounds a bit harsh, but use.lock is a simple concept to explain, as is use.required, tho the .required disturbs my aesthetic sense simply because it's too long to be "short and simple". -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list