Marius Mauch wrote:
The main problem I see is that if it's becoming a real incremental
(across all config layers) it would change behavior for users as they'd
need to prefix their use-expanded vars with -* to retain their current
config. But I guess that's why you added that final clause about
pr
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:14:19 +0100
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The main problem I see is that if it's becoming a real incremental
> (across all config layers) it would change behavior for users as
> they'd need to prefix their use-expanded vars with -* to retain their
> current config
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 20:21:45 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:14:19 +0100 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:12:47 +
> | Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > Following a discussion in #gentoo-portage earlier th
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:14:19 +0100 Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:12:47 +
| Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Following a discussion in #gentoo-portage earlier this evening, it
| > was suggested that I send out an RFC email for this. So, does anyone
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:12:47 +
Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Following a discussion in #gentoo-portage earlier this evening, it was
> suggested that I send out an RFC email for this. So, does anyone
> object to requiring that any variable listed in USE_EXPAND be treated
> as incr
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:24:03 -0800
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Stephen Bennett wrote:
>>> The proposal means that all variables listed in USE_EXPAND get
>>> handled exactly as USE does where profile inheritance is concerned.
>>> Subprofiles can add to
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:24:03 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > The proposal means that all variables listed in USE_EXPAND get
> > handled exactly as USE does where profile inheritance is concerned.
> > Subprofiles can add to and remove from the value in
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> The proposal means that all variables listed in USE_EXPAND get handled
> exactly as USE does where profile inheritance is concerned. Subprofiles
> can add to and remove from the value in the parent profile just as they
> can for USE.
Did I misread what you said earlier?
S
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:27:43 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd rather not make USE_EXPAND incremental if we can't subtract flags.
> At present, we accomplish that by simply resetting the whole thing in
> subprofiles. But the proposal seems to make impossible any subprofile
> o
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:27:43 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I'd rather not make USE_EXPAND incremental if we can't subtract flags.
You mean via -flag? Or via -*? Both are valid in incrementals.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:24:49 -0800
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> That means that the base profiles must have a minimal setting that is
>> added to in lower profiles, rather than a reasonable default that's
>> entirely reset in lower profiles (perhaps to
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 13:24:49 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That means that the base profiles must have a minimal setting that is
> added to in lower profiles, rather than a reasonable default that's
> entirely reset in lower profiles (perhaps to a smaller setting),
> correct?
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I'm not a huge fan of that, if that's what it requires, since there is
no way of subtracting USE_EXPAND settings that I know about.
Ability to subtract comes with incremental stacking, which I think we
are talking about here, at least I hope so.
--
Kind Regards,
Simon
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> Following a discussion in #gentoo-portage earlier this evening, it was
> suggested that I send out an RFC email for this. So, does anyone object
> to requiring that any variable listed in USE_EXPAND be treated as
> incremental, at least as far as profile inheritance is conc
Following a discussion in #gentoo-portage earlier this evening, it was
suggested that I send out an RFC email for this. So, does anyone object
to requiring that any variable listed in USE_EXPAND be treated as
incremental, at least as far as profile inheritance is concerned?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.or
15 matches
Mail list logo
