From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC5F1389E2 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:59:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 67FE8E0932; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:59:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 112E8E0880 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:59:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61F1F3403EC for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:59:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.344 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.344 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.632, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pEt_BqBVN-QW for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:59:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BB7D340383 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:59:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Xsyqi-0000Dl-E4 for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:59:00 +0100 Received: from rrcs-71-40-157-251.se.biz.rr.com ([71.40.157.251]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:59:00 +0100 Received: from wireless by rrcs-71-40-157-251.se.biz.rr.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:59:00 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: James Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: flag details Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 18:58:49 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <54737908.40702@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 71.40.157.251 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0 SeaMonkey/2.26.1) X-Archives-Salt: a87641a5-53af-4718-8e6c-3af03fd2db52 X-Archives-Hash: e19af5021b5041862789cd67d3bc2082 Emanuele Rusconi gmail.com> writes: > When in doubt I just read the ebuild and try to understand what's > going on. A policy would be nice, though, and sometimes even reading > the ebuild leaves me guessing. As you point out, saying "foo: enables > libfoo" leaves me wandering "OK, but what the f* would I need foo for??" I wonder if there is a reasonable why to extend app-portage/elogviewer to parse more more details related to flags, or at leaset compile-time and run-time details? curiously, James