> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 00:18:44 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> > On Thu, 9 Jun 2016, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > Who did establish that *idiotic* policy and why is he still a
>> > developer?
>>
>> Michał,
>> You may want to reconsider your
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 00:18:44 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Jun 2016, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> That would be a policy violation. Packages should pick a reasonable
> >> default if flags are conflicting, but not force users to
> >> micro-manage their flags.
>
> > Who did establis
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016, Michał Górny wrote:
>> That would be a policy violation. Packages should pick a reasonable
>> default if flags are conflicting, but not force users to
>> micro-manage their flags.
> Who did establish that *idiotic* policy and why is he still a
> developer?
Michał,
You m
Michał Górny schrieb:
2. Packages use REQUIRED_USE to force an appropriate choice.
That would be a policy violation. Packages should pick a reasonable
default if flags are conflicting, but not force users to micro-manage
their flags.
Who did establish that *idiotic* policy and why is he sti
On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 22:24:20 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Jun 2016, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > That said, I think we could go with some generic idea like this
> > (assumes new GUI expand is being used):
>
> > [...]
>
> > 2. Packages use REQUIRED_USE to force an appropriate
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016, Michał Górny wrote:
> That said, I think we could go with some generic idea like this
> (assumes new GUI expand is being used):
> [...]
> 2. Packages use REQUIRED_USE to force an appropriate choice.
That would be a policy violation. Packages should pick a reasonable
de
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:03:16 -0700
Brian Dolbec wrote:
> We instead implement something along the lines of:
>
> an ordered list of the gui toolkits in their preferred order of
> desirability. This should be an all inclusive list. Note: these are
> subject to package.use setting overrides.
>
>
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:31:49 -0400
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 06/07/2016 04:59 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >>
> >> I'll believe this when I see it =P
> >
> > You won't because the Gentoo way is to create a shitload of hacks
> > instead of fixing the root issue.
> >
>
> I'm not arguing for a
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>
> an ordered list of the gui toolkits in their preferred order of
> desirability. This should be an all inclusive list. Note: these are
> subject to package.use setting overrides.
>
This has been my thought as well. This really isn't limite
On Di, 2016-06-07 at 12:03 -0700, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:29:58 -0400
> Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> >
> > On 06/07/2016 12:20 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > So many weird ideas... while the simplest one is a proper
> > > REQUIRED_USE with gui being the control fl
On 06/07/2016 04:59 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> I'll believe this when I see it =P
>
> You won't because the Gentoo way is to create a shitload of hacks
> instead of fixing the root issue.
>
I'm not arguing for anything here, I'm just toying around with an idea
for fun. What we want is a way t
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 22:59:42 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> Not 5 minutes. Depending on the context, Portage can complain about
> REQUIRED_USE in a few seconds because it has no further point
> in evaluating the depgraph.
...but it shouldn't, because then it only gives you the first error.
--
Ciara
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:31:52 -0400
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 06/07/2016 02:57 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > The point is that:
> >
> > 1. REQUIRED_USE is semi-machine-understandable while pkg_pretend() is
> > some random function crap.
>
> Why do users care about that? Why do I even care
On 06/07/2016 02:57 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> The point is that:
>
> 1. REQUIRED_USE is semi-machine-understandable while pkg_pretend() is
> some random function crap.
Why do users care about that? Why do I even care about that? The whole
ebuild is random function crap. The only benefit is con
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:29:58 -0400
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 06/07/2016 12:20 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > So many weird ideas... while the simplest one is a proper
> > REQUIRED_USE with gui being the control flag, and IUSE defaults to
> > select the preferred toolkit.
> >
>
> This is w
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:50:36 -0400
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 06/07/2016 12:20 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >>
> >> A pkg_pretend() message would certainly make sense and IMO be a good
> >> idea, but again this isn't any different than the situation as it
> >> stands now WITHOUT a USE=gui. Regardl
On 06/07/2016 12:20 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> A pkg_pretend() message would certainly make sense and IMO be a good
>> idea, but again this isn't any different than the situation as it
>> stands now WITHOUT a USE=gui. Regardless I don't see this as a
>> blocker to the idea.
>
> Nope, it won't.
On 06/07/2016 12:20 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> So many weird ideas... while the simplest one is a proper REQUIRED_USE
> with gui being the control flag, and IUSE defaults to select
> the preferred toolkit.
>
This is what came to my mind.
The underlying problem that we are hitting (a la Patrick
On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:53:54 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 04/06/16 01:40 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> > On 06/03/2016 09:07 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >> On 03/06/16 11:26 PM, Nick Vinson wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [ Snip! ] In cases where there's more than 1 option, you have to
> >>> either
On 07/06/16 10:19 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 07/06/16 05:19 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> On 06/06/2016 04:53 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>>
>>> This -can- be simplified using a REQUIRED_USE to force just-one-of
>>> gtk3,qt4,qt5 , but you can technically do the same with USE=gui too --
>>> all
On 07/06/16 05:19 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 06/06/2016 04:53 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>
>> This -can- be simplified using a REQUIRED_USE to force just-one-of
>> gtk3,qt4,qt5 , but you can technically do the same with USE=gui too --
>> all you'd need to do is add dependencies for the no-spec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/06/16 13:27, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> What does that mean?
It means that it is made explicit in some way clearly visible to the
end-user.
> Take www-client/otter, for example. It's a qt5-based browser. It
> doesn't have the qt5 flag. How can
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:23:49 +0200
Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 07/06/16 11:27, James Le Cuirot wrote:
>
> > Some packages require qt5 unconditionally, is that bad too?
>
> It is if the requirement isn't made explicit.
What does that mean? Take www-client/otter, for example. It's a
qt5-based
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/06/16 11:27, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> I don't think that's unreasonable given that it only does that
> when qt4 and gtk3 are disabled.
It is horribly counter-intuitive. -qt5 should never result in qt5.
> Some packages require qt5 unconditional
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 11:19:13 +0200
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 06/06/2016 04:53 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >
> > This -can- be simplified using a REQUIRED_USE to force just-one-of
> > gtk3,qt4,qt5 , but you can technically do the same with USE=gui too
> > -- all you'd need to do is add dependenci
On 06/06/2016 04:53 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> This -can- be simplified using a REQUIRED_USE to force just-one-of
> gtk3,qt4,qt5 , but you can technically do the same with USE=gui too --
> all you'd need to do is add dependencies for the no-specific-flag case.
>
> RDEPEND="...
> qt5? ( d
On 04/06/16 01:40 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 06/03/2016 09:07 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 03/06/16 11:26 PM, Nick Vinson wrote:
>>>
>>> [ Snip! ] In cases where there's more than 1 option, you have to
>>> either introduce RESTRICTED_USE as Patrick alluded to, or decide a
>>> pecking ord
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 03.06.2016 kell 22:40, kirjutas Daniel Campbell:
> You touched on the part that I'm most concerned about: choosing. If
> the
> 'GUI' USE_EXPAND gets in, do we maintainers check that variable and
> if
> there's no preference just build whatever?
As I don't want this thread to
On 06/02/2016 05:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
We understand that some people have goals like 'I want Qt everywhere,
I hate GTK+ so much I'd rather not be able to do anything than have
GTK+ on my system'. We respect them. But we're no longer goi
On 06/03/2016 09:07 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 03/06/16 11:26 PM, Nick Vinson wrote:
>>
>> [ Snip! ] In cases where there's more than 1 option, you have to
>> either introduce RESTRICTED_USE as Patrick alluded to, or decide a
>> pecking order (or decide who gets to decide the pecking order).
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:33:16 -0700
Nick Vinson wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2016 1:15 PM, "Alan McKinnon" wrote:
> >
> > On 03/06/2016 21:34, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:35:45AM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote
> >>
> >>> USE=gui is about building the graphical user i
On 03/06/16 11:26 PM, Nick Vinson wrote:
>
> [ Snip! ] In cases where there's more than 1 option, you have to
> either introduce RESTRICTED_USE as Patrick alluded to, or decide a
> pecking order (or decide who gets to decide the pecking order).
Which dev's already need to do, without USE=gui --
On 06/03/2016 07:35 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 02/06/16 09:48 PM, Nick Vinson wrote:
>> On 06/02/2016 08:08 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>>> use case: Telling a package to build a gui without deciding which one
>>> to build. Also helps in cases where you have package A that can only
>>> buil
On 03/06/2016 23:33, Nick Vinson wrote:
> USE="gtk" is a dependency.
No. It is a feature. However, it is a feature named after the
dependencies needed to enable it. If a package has a hard dependency on
libgtk, a USE flag would not be added, but a soft dependency on libgtk
means that libgtk
On Jun 3, 2016 1:15 PM, "Alan McKinnon" wrote:
>
> On 03/06/2016 21:34, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:35:45AM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote
>>
>>> USE=gui is about building the graphical user interface that an
>>> application offers, when it is optional. That's it.
On 03/06/16 21:13, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Walter,
>
> I think you're missing where the devs want to take this and what USE
> is all about. It's about *features*, not about dependencies.
>
> USE="gtk" is a dependency.
> USE="gui" is a feature.
> You only need enable a specific graphics lib flag when
On 03/06/2016 21:34, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:35:45AM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote
USE=gui is about building the graphical user interface that an
application offers, when it is optional. That's it. What
dependencies that means and so on have nothing to do with
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:35:45AM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote
> USE=gui is about building the graphical user interface that an
> application offers, when it is optional. That's it. What
> dependencies that means and so on have nothing to do with the flag.
That reasoning may have been valid
On 06/03/2016 10:52 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2 czerwca 2016 21:36:10 CEST, waltd...@waltdnes.org napisał(a):
>>
>> Is it broken right now? What improvement will we see from having to
>> add a "GUI" flag?
> TL;DR: it's broken as hell, missing GUI, flag conflicts, implicit flags, full
> pack
On 02/06/16 09:48 PM, Nick Vinson wrote:
> On 06/02/2016 08:08 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>> use case: Telling a package to build a gui without deciding which one
>> to build. Also helps in cases where you have package A that can only
>> build a qt gui, and package B that can build both qt and g
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Damien Levac wrote:
> On 2016-06-02 05:27 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>
>> On 06/02/2016 12:57 PM, Damien Levac wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 2016-06-02 03:42 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:31:11AM -0400, Damien Levac wrote
> IM
On 02/06/16 05:27 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> To play devil's advocate, can we get a citation on "users don't want to
> care"? Which users? Does Gentoo have a lot of users who don't care, or
> does it attract a more passionate audience that enjoys the control that
> comes with being source-based?
On 2016-06-02 05:27 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
On 06/02/2016 12:57 PM, Damien Levac wrote:
On 2016-06-02 03:42 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:31:11AM -0400, Damien Levac wrote
IMHO, you see this in reverse. the 'gui' useflag would be useful for
users who don't w
Dnia 2 czerwca 2016 21:36:10 CEST, waltd...@waltdnes.org napisał(a):
>On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 06:50:59AM +0100, Graham Murray wrote
>> waltd...@waltdnes.org writes:
>>
>> > Let me re-phrase my question... is there *ANY* set of
>circumstances
>> > under which any of X/xorg/wayland/mir/qt4/qt5/gtk
On 06/02/2016 08:08 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> use case: Telling a package to build a gui without deciding which one
> to build. Also helps in cases where you have package A that can only
> build a qt gui, and package B that can build both qt and gtk, and
> package C that can build gtk only.
On 06/02/2016 02:55 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> To play devil's advocate, can we get a citation on "users don't want to
>> care"? Which users? Does Gentoo have a lot of users who don't care, or
>> does it attract a more passionate audience th
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> To play devil's advocate, can we get a citation on "users don't want to
> care"? Which users? Does Gentoo have a lot of users who don't care, or
> does it attract a more passionate audience that enjoys the control that
> comes with being sou
On 06/02/2016 01:46 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 16:37:58 -0400
> waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 04:25:07PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote
>>> On 02/06/16 03:42 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:31:11AM -0400, Damien Levac
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Igor Savlook wrote:
> Ok if i want just disable gtk i use USE="-gtk -gtk2 -gtk3".
>
And that is fine if your goal is to disable gtk. Most people don't
have goals like this - their goal is probably to prefer qt, not to
disable gtk, and so on. If you prefer a packa
On 06/02/2016 12:57 PM, Damien Levac wrote:
>
>
> On 2016-06-02 03:42 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:31:11AM -0400, Damien Levac wrote
>>> IMHO, you see this in reverse. the 'gui' useflag would be useful for
>>> users who don't want to care about X/wayland/mir and
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> We understand that some people have goals like 'I want Qt everywhere,
> I hate GTK+ so much I'd rather not be able to do anything than have
> GTK+ on my system'. We respect them. But we're no longer going to
> optimize Gentoo for those people
On 06/02/16 23:46, Michał Górny wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 16:37:58 -0400
waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 04:25:07PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote
On 02/06/16 03:42 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:31:11AM -0400, Damien Levac wrote
IMHO, you se
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 16:37:58 -0400
waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 04:25:07PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote
> > On 02/06/16 03:42 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:31:11AM -0400, Damien Levac wrote
> > >>
> > >> IMHO, you see this in revers
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 04:25:07PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote
> On 02/06/16 03:42 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:31:11AM -0400, Damien Levac wrote
> >>
> >> IMHO, you see this in reverse. the 'gui' useflag would be useful for
> >> users who don't want to care ab
On 02/06/16 03:42 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:31:11AM -0400, Damien Levac wrote
>>
>> IMHO, you see this in reverse. the 'gui' useflag would be useful for
>> users who don't want to care about X/wayland/mir and do not want to care
>> about gtk/qt, they just want
On 2016-06-02 03:42 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:31:11AM -0400, Damien Levac wrote
IMHO, you see this in reverse. the 'gui' useflag would be useful for
users who don't want to care about X/wayland/mir and do not want to care
about gtk/qt, they just want windows t
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:31:11AM -0400, Damien Levac wrote
>
> IMHO, you see this in reverse. the 'gui' useflag would be useful for
> users who don't want to care about X/wayland/mir and do not want to care
> about gtk/qt, they just want windows to be drawn for the applications
> they install
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 06:50:59AM +0100, Graham Murray wrote
> waltd...@waltdnes.org writes:
>
> > Let me re-phrase my question... is there *ANY* set of circumstances
> > under which any of X/xorg/wayland/mir/qt4/qt5/gtk2/gtk3/fltk USE flag
> > can be set for a package *WITHOUT* requiring a gui
use case: Telling a package to build a gui without deciding which one to
build. Also helps in cases where you have package A that can only build a
qt gui, and package B that can build both qt and gtk, and package C that
can build gtk only. You want to have a gui for all three, but you don't
want
On 01/06/16 10:13 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 07:56:41PM +0200, Micha?? Górny wrote
>
>> waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
>>
>>> I see this as at least a redundancy, if not a problem. First, let's
>>> look at the general case. An optional "UI" (User Interface) is als
On 2016-06-01 10:13 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 07:56:41PM +0200, Micha?? Górny wrote
waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
I see this as at least a redundancy, if not a problem. First, let's
look at the general case. An optional "UI" (User Interface) is also
select
waltd...@waltdnes.org writes:
> Let me re-phrase my question... is there *ANY* set of circumstances
> under which any of X/xorg/wayland/mir/qt4/qt5/gtk2/gtk3/fltk USE flag
> can be set for a package *WITHOUT* requiring a gui?
Yes. X/xorg could be needed to incorporate the X Client libraries so
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 22:13:24 -0400
waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 07:56:41PM +0200, Micha?? Górny wrote
>
> > waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> >
> > > I see this as at least a redundancy, if not a problem. First, let's
> > > look at the general case. An optional "UI" (
On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 07:56:41PM +0200, Micha?? Górny wrote
> waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
>
> > I see this as at least a redundancy, if not a problem. First, let's
> > look at the general case. An optional "UI" (User Interface) is also
> > selected...
> > * via the "tools" useflag 78 times
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:53:31 -0400
waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 05:29:55PM +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote
>
> > It is meant as a feature based USE flag, as opposed to the "extra dep"
> > based USE flags we've been using for this.
> > There are a lot of those with USE=gtk righ
On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 05:29:55PM +0300, Mart Raudsepp wrote
> It is meant as a feature based USE flag, as opposed to the "extra dep"
> based USE flags we've been using for this.
> There are a lot of those with USE=gtk right now. In many cases it's
> some little add-on graphical utility for a lib
What about a global "default gui" somewhere in make.conf that says what GUI
to use if a package provides multiple?
Relatedly, I also like having a general "qt" USE flag to select any/the
best version of qt, and then having "qtX' for each version of qt...ditto
for gtk and gtkX
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016
On 06/01/2016 12:52 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 01/06/16 11:19 AM, NP-Hardass wrote:
>> On 06/01/2016 10:29 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> So here's something more simple wrt GUI USE flags.
>>>
>>> Global USE=gui for
>>> gui - enable an optional graphics user interface or extra GU
On 06/01/2016 09:21 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 17:29:55 +0300
> Mart Raudsepp wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> So here's something more simple wrt GUI USE flags.
>>
>> Global USE=gui for
>> gui - enable an optional graphics user interface or extra GUI tool
>>
>> (wording improvements w
On 01/06/16 11:19 AM, NP-Hardass wrote:
> On 06/01/2016 10:29 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> So here's something more simple wrt GUI USE flags.
>>
>> Global USE=gui for
>> gui - enable an optional graphics user interface or extra GUI tool
>>
>> Essentially, if it's an optional GUI, it'd b
On 06/01/2016 12:21 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 17:29:55 +0300
> Mart Raudsepp wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> So here's something more simple wrt GUI USE flags.
>>
>> Global USE=gui for
>> gui - enable an optional graphics user interface or extra GUI tool
>>
>> (wording improvements w
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 17:29:55 +0300
Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> Hello,
>
> So here's something more simple wrt GUI USE flags.
>
> Global USE=gui for
> gui - enable an optional graphics user interface or extra GUI tool
>
> (wording improvements welcome, once it's in principle agreed; but no
> point i
On June 1, 2016 7:29:55 AM PDT, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
>Hello,
>
>So here's something more simple wrt GUI USE flags.
>
>Global USE=gui for
>gui - enable an optional graphics user interface or extra GUI tool
>
>(wording improvements welcome, once it's in principle agreed; but no
>point in bikeshed pa
On 2016-06-01 11:19 AM, NP-Hardass wrote:
On 06/01/2016 10:29 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
Hello,
So here's something more simple wrt GUI USE flags.
Global USE=gui for
gui - enable an optional graphics user interface or extra GUI tool
Essentially, if it's an optional GUI, it'd be behind a USE=gu
On 06/01/2016 10:29 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> Hello,
>
> So here's something more simple wrt GUI USE flags.
>
> Global USE=gui for
> gui - enable an optional graphics user interface or extra GUI tool
>
> Essentially, if it's an optional GUI, it'd be behind a USE=gui, instead
> of USE=gtk, USE=X
Hello,
So here's something more simple wrt GUI USE flags.
Global USE=gui for
gui - enable an optional graphics user interface or extra GUI tool
(wording improvements welcome, once it's in principle agreed; but no
point in bikeshed painting description wording till it is)
Local USE flag descript
76 matches
Mail list logo
