On 04/27/2012 12:57 PM, David Leverton wrote:
> Zac Medico wrote:
>> So, here's a description of the whole algorithm that I'd use:
>> [snip]
>
> I think the following is equivalent, but simpler and more general since
> it doesn't have to mention details like ** and friends that aren't
> currently
Zac Medico wrote:
So, here's a description of the whole algorithm that I'd use:
> [snip]
I think the following is equivalent, but simpler and more general since
it doesn't have to mention details like ** and friends that aren't
currently in PMS, and doesn't assume that the rule for handling K
Am Freitag 27 April 2012, 11:30:57 schrieb Michael Haubenwallner:
> On 04/27/12 00:03, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > as soon as possible (which likely means in the next EAPI?):
> > * two new files in profile directories supported, package.use.stable.mask
> > and package.use.stable.force
> > * synt
Am Freitag 27 April 2012, 16:31:10 schrieb Ian Stakenvicius:
> > Where this would (have been|be) useful: * we had for a long time
> > different revisions of subversion with/without kde useflag *
> > cups-1.4 had the infamous libusb backend triggered by USE=usb *
> > cups-1.5 has optional systemd
Am Freitag 27 April 2012, 13:35:21 schrieb Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn:
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> >> * two new files in profile directories supported,
> >> package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
> >> * syntax is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force
> >> * meaning is
Am Freitag 27 April 2012, 17:26:48 schrieb Zac Medico:
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing something, but what would happen when the newest
> > version of a package is marked stable? The masked USE flags would
> > become unavailable for everyone?
>
> In order to be practical, I guess we'd have to add a con
On 04/27/2012 06:49 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>
>> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
* two new files in profile directories supported,
package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
* syntax is identical to package.use.mas
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
> I agree that the ~arch ebuilds should be tested in the same
> configuration in which they will end up in arch. However in this case,
> the possible configurations for arch are a subset of those in ~arch, so
> the testing covers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 26/04/12 06:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I'd like to suggest we introduce the following very useful feature,
> as soon as possible (which likely means in the next EAPI?):
>
> * two new files in profile directories supporte
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
>>> * two new files in profile directories supported,
>>> package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
>>> * syntax is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force
>>> * meaning is identical to
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
>> * two new files in profile directories supported,
>> package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
>> * syntax is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force
>> * meaning is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force,
>> except that the resulting
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:03:54 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> * two new files in profile directories supported,
> package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
> * syntax is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force
> * meaning is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.f
On 04/27/12 00:03, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
as soon as possible (which likely means in the next EAPI?):
* two new files in profile directories supported, package.use.stable.mask and
package.use.stable.force
* syntax is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force
* meaning is identical
On Thursday 26 April 2012 18:03:54 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> * two new files in profile directories supported, package.use.stable.mask
> and package.use.stable.force
> * syntax is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force
> * meaning is identical to package.use.mask and package.use.forc
Dear all,
I'd like to suggest we introduce the following very useful feature, as soon as
possible (which likely means in the next EAPI?):
* two new files in profile directories supported, package.use.stable.mask and
package.use.stable.force
* syntax is identical to package.use.mask and packag
15 matches
Mail list logo
