Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Denis Dupeyron wrote: > On 10/10/07, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Eventually I'd like to add an option that >> behaves similar to --resume but also recalculates dependencies. > > Why not make that the default ? That would be safer IMO. I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

On 10/10/07, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eventually I'd like to add an option that > behaves similar to --resume but also recalculates dependencies. Why not make that the default ? That would be safer IMO. Plus, once we have this, it looks to me that nobody has to wait for EAPI=1 in o

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marius Mauch wrote: > On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:16:03 +0200 > "Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 10/10/07, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I think it's OK to start using package.use now considering that >>> package.use has been

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:16:03 +0200 "Denis Dupeyron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/10/07, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think it's OK to start using package.use now considering that > > package.use has been supported since portage-2.1.2 and that's been > > stable since February.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Denis Dupeyron wrote: > On 10/10/07, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think it's OK to start using package.use now considering that >> package.use has been supported since portage-2.1.2 and that's been >> stable since February. There are alre

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

On 10/10/07, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it's OK to start using package.use now considering that > package.use has been supported since portage-2.1.2 and that's been > stable since February. There are already a couple of packages using > it in the tree now. Is it a good idea fo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim Ramsay wrote: > "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> how soon can we start to use it >> to replace the old crufty no* flags > > So what's going on here? Do we need to wait for EAPI=1 and use the new > IUSE defaults? Or can we use pac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > how soon can we start to use it > to replace the old crufty no* flags So what's going on here? Do we need to wait for EAPI=1 and use the new IUSE defaults? Or can we use package.use right now? I also have some 'disablefoo' USE flags I want to clea

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jason Smathers wrote: > On 10/2/07, *Robin H. Johnson* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > Before dberholz complains about my next commit, given that we have > support in profiles for package.use, how

Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting rid of lurking no* USE flags - profile-based package.use

On 10/2/07, Robin H. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > Before dberholz complains about my next commit, given that we have > support in profiles for package.use, how soon can we start to use it to > replace the old crufty no* flags (particularly ones that are critical to > a system