On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Maciej Mrozowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 of December 2008 10:40:19 Alec Warner wrote:
>
>>
>> You asked, so the counter proposal is to *do nothing*.
>>
>> Ideas (even good ones) don't always get implemented.
>>
>> Sometimes that just isn't the d
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 08:19:18 +0100
Maciej Mrozowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, and I'm afraid I cannot provide any single evidence that users
> actually need features like:
> - per package cflags/ldflags/features
> - per category use flags, accept_keywords, cflags
> - or tag clouds instead of
On Tuesday 02 of December 2008 10:40:19 Alec Warner wrote:
>
> You asked, so the counter proposal is to *do nothing*.
>
> Ideas (even good ones) don't always get implemented.
>
> Sometimes that just isn't the direction the maintainers want to take
> the project.
> Sometimes it is harder to imple
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Maciej Mrozowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 01 of December 2008 22:51:57 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> Experience, manpower, the ability to try out potential enhancements
>> rapidly, a long track record of getting it right and the growing
>> recognition tha
On Monday 01 of December 2008 22:51:57 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Experience, manpower, the ability to try out potential enhancements
> rapidly, a long track record of getting it right and the growing
> recognition that most people doing package manager work for Gentoo
> aren't doing it with Portage
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:46:18 +0100
Maciej Mrozowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That I found interesting - what does any 3rd party package manager to
> do with setting policies and enhancements regarding official Gentoo
> package manager?
Experience, manpower, the ability to try out potential enha
On Monday 01 of December 2008 08:04:04 Duncan wrote:
> (Of
> course, if it's the latter, it will need to be an official GLEP, and
> you'll have three separate package managers and their developers to push
> the proposal thru to at least to general agreement, or the council will
> almost certainly r
On Monday 01 of December 2008 09:36:12 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > - USE=debug is useless when CFLAGS/LDFLAGS or FEATURES are not
> > appropriate
> What are you saying here? I'm afraid you're mistaken here.
The point is to look at this from users' (well, a bit) point of view -
USE=debug
On Monday 01 of December 2008 08:04:04 Duncan wrote:
Well, so far it's not GLEP, just an idea thrown to brainstorm.
> As such, neither /etc/portage/env nor eclasses can effectively deal with
> FEATURES in general, tho there are a few specific exceptions that do
> happen to be implemented at the b
Maciej Mrozowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - USE=debug is useless when CFLAGS/LDFLAGS or FEATURES are not appropriate
What are you saying here? I'm afraid you're mistaken here.
For the most part, USE=debug means "enable debug code paths", which for
lots of projects simply means "enable asse
Maciej Mrozowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 01 Dec
2008 06:16:07 +0100:
> Implementation:
> Implementation would be provided by build system eclasses [snip]
> - replace FEATURES with FEATURES_DEBUG
FEATURES are package-manager implemented, above the ba
11 matches
Mail list logo
