On 02/12/2012 15:34, Walter Dnes wrote:
> Howsabout following the same protocol as with CXX/NOCXX? In the past,
> portage would pick a default if neither was specified.
You don't know what you're talking about I'm afraid.
Before we had USE defaults (i.e. IUSE="+cxx") we had a nocxx (negative)
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 11:16:16PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote
> Maybe the easiest option would be to keep current defaults and simply
> include a news item when libreoffice starts to pull in openldap
> on a lot of systems remembering admins that they can safely enable
> minimal USE flag for openldap
El dom, 02-12-2012 a las 07:58 -0800, Diego Elio Pettenò escribió:
> On 02/12/2012 00:43, Michał Górny wrote:
> > How about splitting the ebuild into separate library and server
> > and fixing the deps? It would be cleaner for people, and we'd just
> > release a news message that those who need an
On 02/12/2012 08:48, Michał Górny wrote:
> And when was poppler split a library/server split?
Okay, listen, I tried to tell you this, before, a number of times:
repeating your same line ad nauseam is _not_ going to convince me that
you're right.
When I'm telling you I don't like your idea, you ca
2012/12/2 Michał Górny :
> And when was poppler split a library/server split?
>
I think it was 2k8 or so, before the kde team took over its maintenance.
On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 08:23:30 -0800
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 02/12/2012 08:20, Michał Górny wrote:
> > For users? Since when a correctly split package is a pain for user?
>
> Funny I think you would have guessed... let's say, a Poppler split that
> every other update would fail in the middl
On 02/12/2012 08:20, Michał Górny wrote:
> For users? Since when a correctly split package is a pain for user?
Funny I think you would have guessed... let's say, a Poppler split that
every other update would fail in the middle leaving a system completely
unable to start a PDF viewer without crashi
On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 07:58:29 -0800
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 02/12/2012 00:43, Michał Górny wrote:
> > How about splitting the ebuild into separate library and server
> > and fixing the deps? It would be cleaner for people, and we'd just
> > release a news message that those who need an LDAP
On 02/12/2012 00:43, Michał Górny wrote:
> How about splitting the ebuild into separate library and server
> and fixing the deps? It would be cleaner for people, and we'd just
> release a news message that those who need an LDAP server, need to put
> it in their @world.
How about no? Split package
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 15:16:49 -0800
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> So Thomáš posted today [1] that the new LibreOffice 4 is going to _need_
> an LDAP provider in the future because they are not going to keep it
> optional as it is now. Right now, the only provider we have in portage
> (as far as me a
Diego Elio Pettenò schrieb:
> In
> the mean time, I would suggest that, since the desktop profiles already
> have USE=ldap enabled, we should default on the same profiles to
>
> net-nds/openldap minimal
>
> to make sure that the default desktop users don't get a copy of openldap
> (server) instal
So Thomáš posted today [1] that the new LibreOffice 4 is going to _need_
an LDAP provider in the future because they are not going to keep it
optional as it is now. Right now, the only provider we have in portage
(as far as me and him can tell) is openldap (although mozldap also exists).
This made
12 matches
Mail list logo
