On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:55:45 -0700
Raymond Jennings wrote:
> If I may ask, isn't usage by 27 packages ample grounds on its own to
> make it a global use flag?
>
> This is one of the questions I noticed on the ebuild quiz, and there
> the ballpark is around 5 packages sharing a use flag. we're w
If I may ask, isn't usage by 27 packages ample grounds on its own to make
it a global use flag?
This is one of the questions I noticed on the ebuild quiz, and there the
ballpark is around 5 packages sharing a use flag. we're way over that mark.
my two cents.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM, T
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:28:41 +0200
Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> On 20/02/14 18:27, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:26:18 +0200
> > Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >
> >> On 20/02/14 10:47, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 10:40 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 2
On 20/02/14 18:27, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:26:18 +0200
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
>> On 20/02/14 10:47, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 10:40 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 20/02/14 09:44, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 07:55 +
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:41:58 +
hasufell wrote:
> But the question is... what sane alternative to REQUIRED_USE? That
> will also have impact on a lot of eclasses.
Either pkg_pretend, or Exherbo's MYOPTIONS.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:48:11 +0100 Ulrich Mueller
> wrote:
>> We don't want users having to solve a Zebra Puzzle [1] (or, for
>> the more theoretically inclined, a satisfiability problem [2]) to
>> find an acceptable combination o
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:26:18 +0200
Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> On 20/02/14 10:47, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 10:40 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> On 20/02/14 09:44, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 07:55 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 20/
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:48:11 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> We don't want users having to solve a Zebra Puzzle [1] (or, for the
> more theoretically inclined, a satisfiability problem [2]) to find
> an acceptable combination of their USE flags.
Actually, REQUIRED_USE was introduced precisely to re
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> I see. So you want USE="gtk gtk3" to mean the same thing that gnome
> team had intended USE="gtk" to mean, which is to say, "pick
> whichever gtk version that is the most sensible".
Exactly.
> That could work. There are already a few ebuil
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:28:36 +0200 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
>On 20/02/14 11:23, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 03:59 -0500, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>>> And this is an example of why everyone on the gnome team doesn't
>>> like the "gtk3" flag. Because well-meaning developers
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 10:26 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, at the same time, lots of other developers are going
> > to start adding support for building against gtk2 XOR gtk3. Because
> > of course "Gentoo is about choice"
On 20 Feb 2014 10:12, "Michał Górny" wrote:
>
> Dnia 2014-02-20, o godz. 01:44:17
> Steev Klimaszewski napisał(a):
>
> > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 07:55 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > > On 20/02/14 00:23, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > Following up to today's QA meeting: The gtk3 USE flag is used b
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 03:23 -0600, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> The KDE team seems to be able to deal with it just fine, but somehow
> it's impossible and hard for the GNOME team. Why is that? What does
> KDE do differently that makes it feasible?
The KDE ecosystem moved from qt3 to qt4 around 20
On 20/02/14 11:23, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 03:59 -0500, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
>> And this is an example of why everyone on the gnome team doesn't like
>> the "gtk3" flag. Because well-meaning developers will be looking at
>> their one corner of the portage tree, dec
On 20/02/14 10:47, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 10:40 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 20/02/14 09:44, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 07:55 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 20/02/14 00:23, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Following up to today's QA meet
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> Unfortunately, at the same time, lots of other developers are going
> to start adding support for building against gtk2 XOR gtk3. Because
> of course "Gentoo is about choice", and the more choices, the
> merrier, and the gtk3 flag has been d
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 03:59 -0500, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> And this is an example of why everyone on the gnome team doesn't like
> the "gtk3" flag. Because well-meaning developers will be looking at
> their one corner of the portage tree, deciding that they are going to
> handle the choice of
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 02:47 -0600, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> OR, since I'm the maintainer, I decide that I'm willing to deal with
> both, instead of you telling me that I need to pick one or the other.
> Upstream says both are supported and viable, and I'm willing to deal
> with the headaches. J
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 09:11 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2014-02-20, o godz. 01:44:17
> Steev Klimaszewski napisał(a):
>
> > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 07:55 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > > On 20/02/14 00:23, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > Following up to today's QA meeting: The gtk3 USE flag
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Michał Górny wrote:
> Except that now users have to use USE='gtk gtk3' to get GUIs in
> random applications that support only one toolkit. And then handle
> REQUIRED_USE mess for packages that support choosing one of the two.
Why REQUIRED_USE? A package can prefer one o
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 10:40 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 20/02/14 09:44, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 07:55 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> On 20/02/14 00:23, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>> Following up to today's QA meeting: The gtk3 USE flag is used by
> >>> 27 packag
On 20/02/14 09:44, Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 07:55 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 20/02/14 00:23, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> Following up to today's QA meeting: The gtk3 USE flag is used by
>>> 27 packages, so I suggest making it a global flag:
>>>
>>> gtk3 - Add suppor
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 23:23:23 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>Following up to today's QA meeting: The gtk3 USE flag is used by
>27 packages, so I suggest making it a global flag:
>
>gtk3 - Add support for x11-libs/gtk+ (The GIMP Toolkit) version 3
>
>Ulrich
+1
gtk+:3 still is a mess even in its ten
Dnia 2014-02-20, o godz. 01:44:17
Steev Klimaszewski napisał(a):
> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 07:55 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > On 20/02/14 00:23, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > Following up to today's QA meeting: The gtk3 USE flag is used by
> > > 27 packages, so I suggest making it a global flag:
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 07:55 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 20/02/14 00:23, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > Following up to today's QA meeting: The gtk3 USE flag is used by
> > 27 packages, so I suggest making it a global flag:
> >
> > gtk3 - Add support for x11-libs/gtk+ (The GIMP Toolkit) version 3
On 20/02/14 00:23, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Following up to today's QA meeting: The gtk3 USE flag is used by
> 27 packages, so I suggest making it a global flag:
>
> gtk3 - Add support for x11-libs/gtk+ (The GIMP Toolkit) version 3
>
> Ulrich
that would suggest it's fine to use, and is anything bu
Following up to today's QA meeting: The gtk3 USE flag is used by
27 packages, so I suggest making it a global flag:
gtk3 - Add support for x11-libs/gtk+ (The GIMP Toolkit) version 3
Ulrich
pgpo0uXzcQQml.pgp
Description: PGP signature
27 matches
Mail list logo
