On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:04:11 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
Maybe we also need a guideline that whenever possible, ebuilds should
accept the default USE flags from our profiles as a valid combination?
Or, in the exceptional case when that isn't possible, a pa
On 02/09/2011 03:11 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> In order to try to avoid forcing users to micro-manage flags too much,
> it might make sense to avoid REQUIRED_USE whenever it's possible to do a
> build that will almost certainly suit the user's needs. The most common
> case that I can imagine where REQ
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:04:11 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Maybe we also need a guideline that whenever possible, ebuilds should
> accept the default USE flags from our profiles as a valid combination?
> Or, in the exceptional case when that isn't possible, a package.use
> entry should be added to
On 02/08/2011 06:20 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> The guideline I usually follow is that flags depending on another flag being
> set (eg. png needs X) should be ignored (you can always ewarn). For flags
> that conflict with other flags (exactly one of many, if-this-not-this) use
> REQUIRED_USE. Does tha
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Ryan Hill wrote:
>> If we really implemented it in this way, then I fear that it would
>> be difficult for users to find out what flag combinations they can
>> use.
> The guideline I usually follow is that flags depending on another
> flag being set (eg. png needs X) sho
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 22:29:11 +0100
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> EAPI 4 introduced the REQUIRED_USE variable, which allows to impose
> restrictions on the allowed USE flag combinations for an ebuild.
>
> On the other hand, according to the devmanual, our policy on
> conflicting USE flags is as follows:
