On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:36:22 +0400
Alexey Shvetsov wrote:
> В письме от 23 января 2013 08:03:56 пользователь Alexis Ballier
> написал:
> > On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:24:26 +0100
> >
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:27:30 -0300
> > >
> > > Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > > > To be
В письме от 23 января 2013 08:03:56 пользователь Alexis Ballier написал:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:24:26 +0100
>
> Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:27:30 -0300
> >
> > Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > > To be honest, I don't know if there's other way to hide USE flags
> > > > than using
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:27:17 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:03:56 -0300
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:24:26 +0100
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:27:30 -0300
> > > Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > >
> > > > > To be honest, I don't
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:03:56 -0300
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:24:26 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:27:30 -0300
> > Alexis Ballier wrote:
> >
> > > > To be honest, I don't know if there's other way to hide USE flags
> > > > than using USE_EXPAND_HI
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:24:26 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:27:30 -0300
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> > > To be honest, I don't know if there's other way to hide USE flags
> > > than using USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN. If we want to use that, we'd have
> > > to split the flags per-arch,
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:27:30 -0300
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > To be honest, I don't know if there's other way to hide USE flags than
> > using USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN. If we want to use that, we'd have to split
> > the flags per-arch, i.e. have:
> >
> > MULTILIB_AMD64="abi1 abi2 abi3"
> > MULTILIB_
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:27:30 -0300
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > To be honest, I don't know if there's other way to hide USE flags than
> > using USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN. If we want to use that, we'd have to split
> > the flags per-arch, i.e. have:
> >
> > MULTILIB_AMD64="abi1 abi2 abi3"
> > MULTILIB_
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:33:39 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
[...]
> > Do you plan to keep precise depends for packages?
> > like glibc[abi_x32]/gcc[abi_x32] for all libraries requesting x32.
>
> Yes. ${MULTILIB_USEDEP} is for that (it currently evaluates
> to 'multilib?').
In that very precise case
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:11:31 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There is a fair interest in multilib and while still early, it would
> be a good moment to decide on how USE flags to use for it.
>
> The current attempts are mostly using USE=multilib which is not really
> expressive and poor.
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> So you want to re-implement multilib-portage in an eclass without the
> additional benefits a package-manager level implementation has?
I really wish you'd just make the PMS diff and get your stuff
implemented. How long has it been?
Thomas Sachau schrieb:
> So you want to re-implement multilib-portage in an eclass without the
> additional benefits a
package-manager level implementation has?
Once the package-manager level implementation becomes available in g-x86
then we can switch to it. If something in the proposed changes
Gilles Dartiguelongue schrieb:
> Le lundi 21 janvier 2013 à 00:01 +0100, Thomas Sachau a écrit :
>> Michał Górny schrieb:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> There is a fair interest in multilib and while still early, it would be
>>> a good moment to decide on how USE flags to use for it.
>>>
>>> The current attemp
Le lundi 21 janvier 2013 à 00:01 +0100, Thomas Sachau a écrit :
> Michał Górny schrieb:
> > Hello,
> >
> > There is a fair interest in multilib and while still early, it would be
> > a good moment to decide on how USE flags to use for it.
> >
> > The current attempts are mostly using USE=multilib
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:01:05 +0100
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Michał Górny schrieb:
> > Hello,
> >
> > There is a fair interest in multilib and while still early, it would be
> > a good moment to decide on how USE flags to use for it.
> >
> > The current attempts are mostly using USE=multilib which
Sergei Trofimovich schrieb:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:11:31 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> There is a fair interest in multilib and while still early, it would be
>> a good moment to decide on how USE flags to use for it.
>>
>> The current attempts are mostly using USE=multilib whic
Michał Górny schrieb:
> Hello,
>
> There is a fair interest in multilib and while still early, it would be
> a good moment to decide on how USE flags to use for it.
>
> The current attempts are mostly using USE=multilib which is not really
> expressive and poor. What I would go for is a clear var
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 01:05:56 +0300
Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:11:31 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > There is a fair interest in multilib and while still early, it would be
> > a good moment to decide on how USE flags to use for it.
> >
> > The current attempts are mos
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:11:31 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There is a fair interest in multilib and while still early, it would be
> a good moment to decide on how USE flags to use for it.
>
> The current attempts are mostly using USE=multilib which is not really
> expressive and poor.
Hello,
There is a fair interest in multilib and while still early, it would be
a good moment to decide on how USE flags to use for it.
The current attempts are mostly using USE=multilib which is not really
expressive and poor. What I would go for is a clear variable specifying
which targets packa
19 matches
Mail list logo
