John Mylchreest wrote: [Sun Jan 16 2005, 12:30:41PM EST]
> #!/bin/bash
> USE="symlink" emerge ${1:-sys-kernel/gentoo-sources}
> genkernel --no-menuconfig --install
[..snip..]
> As I also suggested in a previous post, if you can think of a more
> intuitive way for the user to be able to do this,
On Friday 14 January 2005 19:47, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:04:40 -0500 "Stephen P. Becker"
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | I think it is a horrible idea. Not everyone knows they should do a
> | "make oldconfig" when using an old config file. Those that do know
> | this sh
> >
> > Honestly, what it sounds like you're planning for is a portage feature,
> > not an optional component. You might do better with something like
> > FEATURES=autokernel or something.
>
> I for one would like to see such functionality. Since we have
> genkernel, it shouldnt be hard to impl
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 08:41:00 -0500, Chris Gianelloni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 17:30 +, John Mylchreest wrote:
> > As I requested in a previous post, it is there for a few reasons. It is
> > a key phase in automating the process of kernel upgrades. For example..
> >
> >
On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 17:30 +, John Mylchreest wrote:
> As I requested in a previous post, it is there for a few reasons. It is
> a key phase in automating the process of kernel upgrades. For example..
>
> something along the lines of:
>
> #!/bin/bash
> USE="symlink" emerge ${1:-sys-kernel/ge
M. Edward Borasky wrote:
On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 14:33 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
There *is* a lot to understand about the impact of switching on a particular
USE flag. It means that the user has to make a choice. The user has to
decide whether to just switch it on and say "what the hell", o
On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 14:33 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> There *is* a lot to understand about the impact of switching on a particular
> USE flag. It means that the user has to make a choice. The user has to
> decide whether to just switch it on and say "what the hell", or they have to
> look
On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 18:17 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | As I also suggested in a previous post, if you can think of a more
> | intuitive way for the user to be able to do this, without the use of a
> | USE flag which is persistent and doesn't involved an external file,
> | please. Let me know
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:30:41 + John Mylchreest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > I'll also be petitioning for USE flags to control whether or not
| > each individual icon graphic gets installed with sylpheed-claws. I
| > don't use some of those icons, so including them is bloat.
|
| I think there
On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 09:25 -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> I Tend to feel that the use flags are necessary, and heres a bit of an
> example.
>
> The English Language has millions of words in it, yet people never
> complain that there are too many. Why? Because they only use the ones
> they need, th
On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 16:53 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> What next? A USE flag for every single features setting in vim? That'd
> be over a hundred and thirty new USE flags (ooh, and since both vim and
> gvim use them, they'd be globals of course), and since USE flags are
> great this would b
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:33:36 + Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > In my opinion it shouldn't be added in the first place, if it's a
| > sensible feature it should be default. If it's not, well let the
| > vocal minority yell at you for a while, that's gonna happen at one
| > point or
On Sunday 16 January 2005 13:33, foser wrote:
> What you call tight I call well defined. It is no help to shift meanings
> based on interpretations or situations, it only adds to the confusion.
Who exactly is confused, and what are they confused about?
> What you forget is that you are a develope
I Tend to feel that the use flags are necessary, and heres a bit of an example.
The English Language has millions of words in it, yet people never
complain that there are too many. Why? Because they only use the ones
they need, the same should be true with use flags.
The only improvement I could
On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 17:44 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Why does "package" have to equal "source"? Why can't package equal "Gentoo
> package"?
>
> And why do you feel the need to make your definition so ... tight?
> Restrictive? Unimaginiative? Beaurocratic? What benefit do our users get
foser wrote:
Would you rather have 3k of USE flags you can't deal with to begin with.
Increasing USE flags to no end is at least as much choice inhibiting as
restricting some choice. USE flags are a strong point of Gentoo, but
it's actually getting weaker and weaker all the time.
You are try
On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 17:44 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> At the moment, USE flags are the only per-package mechanism available to
> users
> to indicate their choices. Maybe we need per-package FEATURES? That would
> seem a more appropriate place for John's symlink support?
>
> > The line of
On Saturday 15 January 2005 12:41, foser wrote:
> You define it quite correct : 'optional functionality from the
> _package_' . This is no option defined in the source.
Why does "package" have to equal "source"? Why can't package equal "Gentoo
package"?
And why do you feel the need to make your
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 20:23 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> On Friday 14 January 2005 19:41, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > Use flags are not the solution for all and everything
>
> They *are* the solution for including/removing optional functionality from
> the
> package. Love it or hate it, it is
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 19:17 +, John Mylchreest wrote:
> I don't remember the last time this actually happened.
> There have been disussions about this, but I admit, not on -core or
> -dev.
I haven't seen one discussed in a while either, so you are probably
doing a better job already than those
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:23:17 +, Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 14 January 2005 19:41, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > Use flags are not the solution for all and everything
>
> They *are* the solution for including/removing optional functionality from the
> package. Love it or
On Friday 14 January 2005 19:41, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> Use flags are not the solution for all and everything
They *are* the solution for including/removing optional functionality from the
package. Love it or hate it, it is one of the cornerstones of Gentoo.
> and I absolutely dislike the use
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:50:09 + John Mylchreest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| that was going to be the original idea actually, just keep it local
| use although I thought with the number of ebuilds inheriting this
| flag, it was better suited global. Its something I'm quite happy to
| change.
IM
On Friday 14 January 2005 20:17, John Mylchreest wrote:
> > Plus that the flag is about a silly config issue, pretty pointless
> > adding a flag for this.
>
> it was added since its been asked for, for years in bugs (and generating
> more bugs), and eventually wore me down.
And what does this flag
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 14:42 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 19:17 +, John Mylchreest wrote:
> > > And it's naming is not very explicative either,
> > > it's too tied to a specific context.
> >
> > I couldn't think of a better name tbh. Can you?
>
> kernel-symlink seems
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 19:17 +, John Mylchreest wrote:
> > And it's naming is not very explicative either,
> > it's too tied to a specific context.
>
> I couldn't think of a better name tbh. Can you?
kernel-symlink seems a bit more appropriate. Of course, with that being
the case, it could p
> > As some of you may already be aware, I added a new global USE flag for
> > kernel ebuilds today. This flag is symlink, and will force the
> > re-creation of your /usr/src/linux link to point to the newly installed
> > kernel sources.
>
> I thought global USE flags were to be discussed first a
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 17:25 +, John Mylchreest wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As some of you may already be aware, I added a new global USE flag for
> kernel ebuilds today. This flag is symlink, and will force the
> re-creation of your /usr/src/linux link to point to the newly installed
> kernel sources
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:04:40 -0500 "Stephen P. Becker"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I think it is a horrible idea. Not everyone knows they should do a
| "make oldconfig" when using an old config file. Those that do know
| this shouldn't have a problem just copying their .config themselves.
Kcon
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 13:04 -0500, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> I think it is a horrible idea. Not everyone knows they should do a
> "make oldconfig" when using an old config file. Those that do know this
> shouldn't have a problem just copying their .config themselves.
Then you could run it for
John Mylchreest wrote:
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 11:58 -0600, Don Seiler wrote:
On 17:25 Fri 14 Jan , John Mylchreest wrote:
As some of you may already be aware, I added a new global USE flag for
kernel ebuilds today. This flag is symlink, and will force the
re-creation of your /usr/src/linux link
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 11:58 -0600, Don Seiler wrote:
> On 17:25 Fri 14 Jan , John Mylchreest wrote:
> > As some of you may already be aware, I added a new global USE flag for
> > kernel ebuilds today. This flag is symlink, and will force the
> > re-creation of your /usr/src/linux link to point
Hi All,
As some of you may already be aware, I added a new global USE flag for
kernel ebuilds today. This flag is symlink, and will force the
re-creation of your /usr/src/linux link to point to the newly installed
kernel sources.
This is disabled by default.
Regards,
John
--
Role:G
33 matches
Mail list logo
