Piotr Jaroszyński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Tbh, I don't have any issues with the current solution, but I may be missing
> something. "Rationale" doesn't seem to help though, afaics it is just saying
> that the current behaviour needs to be documented and fwiw PMS draft covers
> this already:
On Monday 14 of January 2008 02:24:53 Mark Loeser wrote:
> Here is a newer revision of the GLEP. I still have multiple methods of
> solving this problem (mostly because I want and *need* input from people
> as to what they would prefer). Please tell me what you would want to
> use so I can come u
Santiago M. Mola wrote:
But stuff like "aac needs encode" and "cdio conflicts with
cdparanoia" should be something separate from USE flag documentation.
Well, at least until it's handled at ebuild level, local USE flag
documentation can be used to explain the implications to the user
beforeh
On 1/14/08, Santiago M. Mola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/14/08, Yuri Vasilevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [ebuild R ] media-video/mplayer-1.0_rc2_p24929-r2 USE="X cdio -aac#1
> > -cdparanoia#2 -encode ..."
> >
> > #1 aac needs encode
> > #2 cdio conflicts with cdparanoia
>
> Th
On 1/14/08, Yuri Vasilevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [ebuild R ] media-video/mplayer-1.0_rc2_p24929-r2 USE="X cdio -aac#1
> -cdparanoia#2 -encode ..."
>
> #1 aac needs encode
> #2 cdio conflicts with cdparanoia
This can be implemented with use.desc/use.local.desc. Paludis already
does
Hello,
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:24:53 -0500
Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What exactly do we need this system to do that we can't do now?
The only interesting thing I can think of, is to expose some of the USE
flags logic found in some ebuilds in a parseable fashion.
I'm talking about
Here is a newer revision of the GLEP. I still have multiple methods of
solving this problem (mostly because I want and *need* input from people
as to what they would prefer). Please tell me what you would want to
use so I can come up with a more precise specification. What exactly do
we need thi
On Wednesday 02 of January 2008 16:58:33 Mark Loeser wrote:
> Doug Klima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > You're the one forcing people to remove overriding USE flags from
> > use.local.desc when that's something that people have been doing for
> > ages. The current Portage tools support that method.
Doug Klima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> You're the one forcing people to remove overriding USE flags from
> use.local.desc when that's something that people have been doing for
> ages. The current Portage tools support that method.
Because this behaviour is not documented anywhere, and if you check
Mark Loeser wrote:
> Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> One of the GLEP's primary goals is to provide a global use flag
>> definition and over-ride
>> it with a local definition. How does putting all flags in use.desc
>> and over-riding local flags in
>> use.local.desc not accomplish th
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:55:10 +0100
"Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2007 3:30 PM, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What benefit does use.xml have over use.desc?
> [...]
> > No need to change the format of use.desc
>
> Anything that would enable us to document wi
Doug Klima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
>> What benefit does use.xml have over use.desc?
>> My opinion is that we should use use.desc for a complete list of use
>> flags, including a generic description, allow a more verbose
>> description in metadata.xml and get rid of the stupi
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> One of the GLEP's primary goals is to provide a global use flag
> definition and over-ride
> it with a local definition. How does putting all flags in use.desc
> and over-riding local flags in
> use.local.desc not accomplish this?
It does, and maybe that's
On Dec 31, 2007 3:30 PM, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What benefit does use.xml have over use.desc?
[...]
> No need to change the format of use.desc
Anything that would enable us to document with more than a few words,
which is what we're practically limited to with the current format
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:54:04 -0500
Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let me know if you like any of those ideas, or if they all suck (and if
they do, you better tell me why). I'm not sure which is the best way
forward, which is why I want everyone to contribute towards
I like the overall idea. I will comment the first proposed alternative
as this is the one that makes the most sense in my opinion.
> Having one global use.xml where the default definitions are, and then using
> metadata.xml for each package to override the USE flag definition.
With 's/default de
On 12/30/07, Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a very very rough draft/question about how we should move
> forward with USE flag documentation and specification. The entire idea
> of a single USE flag having different meanings will need to be revisted
> later. I just want to get an
This is a very very rough draft/question about how we should move
forward with USE flag documentation and specification. The entire idea
of a single USE flag having different meanings will need to be revisted
later. I just want to get an idea of how we can document these
different meanings. Plea
18 matches
Mail list logo
