ssuominen at gentoo
Mar 20, 2012, 3:06 AM
Post #6 of 9
On 03/20/2012 11:47 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-video/ffmpeg: ffmpeg-0.10.2.ebuild ChangeLog
[In reply to]
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:15:45 -0600
> Ryan Hill<dirtyepic [at] gentoo> wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:05:46 -0300
>> Alexis Ballier<aballier [at] gentoo> wrote:
>>> imho it doesnt hurt anyone to have fine-grained control
>>> what could be discussed is to put these into a use expand variable,
>>> to better distinguish between important useflags and less important
>>> is that what you mean by 'putting these under "tools" or
>>> something?' ?
>> No, I meant one USE flag, called "tools", that builds and installs
>> all or none of them. Unless they have external dependencies, or
>> extraordinary build times, or licensing issues, then I can't see a
>> situation where someone would want or need to pick and choose like
>> this. If you disagree then I suppose an expanded variable is an
>> improvement, though I don't like them myself.
>> Kudos on the USE flag descriptions in any case. Very informative.
> well, there's no extra dep nor licensing issue, and its not that they
> are big either, problem is with a merged useflag to rule them all we'll
> lose all the descriptions; i can imagine:
> tools - install random extra tools
> vs. a per tool useflag describing what it is for
> i clearly prefer the latter, even if it requires me 5 more minutes to
> decide the fate of the useflags i'll build the package with
> personally i dont like the tools useflag, the same i dont like the
> server one or the minimal one. they're too generic and, for this reason,
> if we want to make it a use expand, the only thing we need to agree on
> is the prefix i think: what about fftools ? ffmpegtools ?
Maybe there could be use expand that could be reused by other ebuilds
too? Such as EXTERNAL_TOOLS ?