Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Denis Dupeyron wrote: > On 10/10/07, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Eventually I'd like to add an option that >> behaves similar to --resume but also recalculates dependencies. > > Why not make that the default ? That would be safer IMO. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

On 10/10/07, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eventually I'd like to add an option that > behaves similar to --resume but also recalculates dependencies. Why not make that the default ? That would be safer IMO. Plus, once we have this, it looks to me that nobody has to wait for EAPI=1 in o

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marius Mauch wrote: > On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:16:03 +0200 > "Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 10/10/07, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I think it's OK to start using package.use now considering that >>> package.use has been

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:16:03 +0200 "Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/10/07, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think it's OK to start using package.use now considering that > > package.use has been supported since portage-2.1.2 and that's been > > stable since February.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Denis Dupeyron wrote: > On 10/10/07, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think it's OK to start using package.use now considering that >> package.use has been supported since portage-2.1.2 and that's been >> stable since February. There are alre

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

On 10/10/07, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it's OK to start using package.use now considering that > package.use has been supported since portage-2.1.2 and that's been > stable since February. There are already a couple of packages using > it in the tree now. Is it a good idea fo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim Ramsay wrote: > "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> how soon can we start to use it >> to replace the old crufty no* flags > > So what's going on here? Do we need to wait for EAPI=1 and use the new > IUSE defaults? Or can we use pac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > how soon can we start to use it > to replace the old crufty no* flags So what's going on here? Do we need to wait for EAPI=1 and use the new IUSE defaults? Or can we use package.use right now? I also have some 'disablefoo' USE flags I want to clea

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jason Smathers wrote: > On 10/2/07, *Robin H. Johnson* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > Before dberholz complains about my next commit, given that we have > support in profiles for package.use, how

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

On 10/2/07, Robin H. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > Before dberholz complains about my next commit, given that we have > support in profiles for package.use, how soon can we start to use it to > replace the old crufty no* flags (particularly ones that are critical to > a system

[gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

Hi Guys, Before dberholz complains about my next commit, given that we have support in profiles for package.use, how soon can we start to use it to replace the old crufty no* flags (particularly ones that are critical to a system). One of the ones I've got in my sights is USE=nolvmstatic of sys-f