El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 13:41 +, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:33:52 +0100
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > You should be able to -* them out... -* is fine (assuming Portage
> > > handles it) since we know what the null set is; it's just * that's
> > > the problem.
> >
> > Yea
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:33:52 +0100
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > You should be able to -* them out... -* is fine (assuming Portage
> > handles it) since we know what the null set is; it's just * that's
> > the problem.
>
> Yeah, portage handles it, but thought -* also had the same problem,
> thanks for
El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 13:19 +, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:42:35 +0100
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Bleh, forget it, it is a headache to disable cameras then :-S
>
> You should be able to -* them out... -* is fine (assuming Portage
> handles it) since we know what the nu
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:35:42 +0100
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Do you know if there are any plans on implementing it on a future
> EAPI? I think being able to simply enable all of them with "*" would
> be interesting (at least in the future)
It *was* in EAPI 4, since it's necessary to make [use(+)] deps
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:42:35 +0100
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Bleh, forget it, it is a headache to disable cameras then :-S
You should be able to -* them out... -* is fine (assuming Portage
handles it) since we know what the null set is; it's just * that's the
problem.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.
Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:42 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:40 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:37 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> > > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:34 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > > > El lun, 14-02-2011 a las
El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:41 +0100, Ulrich Mueller escribió:
> > On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> > Title: Change on CAMERAS handling in libgphoto2-2.4.10
>
> Too long. GLEP 42 allows a maximum of 44 characters for the title.
>
> > In order to not violate package manager handlin
El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:40 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:37 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:34 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > > El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:24 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> > > > Le lundi 14 févri
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Title: Change on CAMERAS handling in libgphoto2-2.4.10
Too long. GLEP 42 allows a maximum of 44 characters for the title.
> In order to not violate package manager handling
> (http://bugs.gentoo.org/346491),
> selective cameras build logic has bee
El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:37 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:34 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:24 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> > > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > > > El dom, 13-02-2
Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:34 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:24 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > > El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 18:03 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > > > Hello
> > > >
> > > > Pl
El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 20:17 +, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:00:31 +0100
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > If rest of gnome team agrees, I think we could go with, but I still
> > fail to see what is the "technical" problem on allowing CAMERAS="*"
> > to be used :-|
>
> 'cameras
El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:24 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 18:03 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> > > htt
Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 18:03 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > Hello
> >
> > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
> >
> > Thanks
> >
>
> This is an up
El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 18:03 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> Hello
>
> Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
>
> Thanks
>
This is an updated news item for trying to cover Ciaran and Matthew
suggestions:
1. It doesn't
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:00:31 +0100
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> If rest of gnome team agrees, I think we could go with, but I still
> fail to see what is the "technical" problem on allowing CAMERAS="*"
> to be used :-|
'cameras_*' isn't a valid use flag name, so the package mangler can't
just pass the *
On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 14:00 -0600, Matthew Summers wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> wrote:
> > Why not specify all the CAMERAS you know about as being on by default in
> > the profile? Users who care enough can override this with an explicit
> > subset.
> > --
> > Ciaran
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> Why not specify all the CAMERAS you know about as being on by default in
> the profile? Users who care enough can override this with an explicit
> subset.
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh
This is how ALSA_CARDS and LCD_DEVICES are handled now. Its l
On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 19:34 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 20:31:23 +0100
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Wouldn't be any shorter way to build all CAMERAS? We don't want to
> > default to enabling all, with the new way of handling this, if CAMERAS
> > is not set or is empty, nothing
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 20:31:23 +0100
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Wouldn't be any shorter way to build all CAMERAS? We don't want to
> default to enabling all, with the new way of handling this, if CAMERAS
> is not set or is empty, nothing will be built but, if CAMERAS="*"
> shouldn't be used, what should w
On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 17:09 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:03:41 +0100
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
>
> CAMERAS=* shouldn't be legal. Since the strict IUSE stuf
El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 17:09 +, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:03:41 +0100
> Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
>
> CAMERAS=* shouldn't be legal. Since the strict IUS
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:03:41 +0100
Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
CAMERAS=* shouldn't be legal. Since the strict IUSE stuff was dropped
from EAPI 4, and since IUSE isn't complete in any EAPI,
Hello
Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
Thanks
Title: Change on CAMERAS handling in libgphoto2-2.4.10
Author: Pacho Ramos
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2011-02-13
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Insta
24 matches
Mail list logo
