On Friday 13 October 2006 18:40, Zac Medico wrote:
Wow, this thread is pretty huge.
Might wanna like.. take it to a council meeting or something in a medium (such
as IRC) where message should be going back at forth at this sort of interval.
Either that or just duke it out in a parking lot, tic
On Tuesday 17 October 2006 07:30, Luca Barbato wrote:
> the IUSE="nocxx" is that different than IUSE="+cxx" ?
that is where we want to move to
> So it doesn't look to me that problematic, am I missing something?
the issue is that Ciaran wants all of the stuff to be in the profile rather
than in
Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:43:08 -0400
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Placing the default USE flags all in the profiles amounts to profile
duplication where-ever you want to use the ebuilds -> this is
annoying.
This is exactly why we have cascading profiles, no?
S
On 10/17/06, Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is no analogy to be made there. Arguing against carrying profile
metadata in IUSE is trying to prevent a design decision, not trying to
work around one by forcing extra work on people.
There seems to be very little support for your p
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:43:08 -0400
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Placing the default USE flags all in the profiles amounts to profile
> duplication where-ever you want to use the ebuilds -> this is
> annoying.
This is exactly why we have cascading profiles, no?
> So that I DON'T need
Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:23:23 +0200
Sebastian Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stephen Bennett wrote:
And what the hell does paludis have to do with this anyway?
[ ] You get the meaning of "analogy". No, this has nothing to do with
"anal".
There is no analogy
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:23:23 +0200
Sebastian Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen Bennett wrote:
> > And what the hell does paludis have to do with this anyway?
>
> [ ] You get the meaning of "analogy". No, this has nothing to do with
> "anal".
There is no analogy to be made there
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:07:52 +0100 Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:17:11 +0200
| Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > That's a nonargument. But let me put it easier. Don't blame us when
| > paludis made a design mistake and try to force that mistake
Stephen Bennett wrote:
> And what the hell does paludis have to do with this anyway?
[ ] You get the meaning of "analogy". No, this has nothing to do with
"anal".
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:17:11 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's a nonargument. But let me put it easier. Don't blame us when
> paludis made a design mistake and try to force that mistake on the
> rest of us. Instead fix paludis.
What design mistake? And what the hell does p
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
[rants]
the IUSE="nocxx" is that different than IUSE="+cxx" ?
the per ebuild defaults let you replace the ugly nofoo to +foo,
archiving just the same.
It is evaluated just only if there isn't anything before it (say
make.conf and friends)
So it doesn't look to me that pro
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| It's a stupid statement, not providing any further backing for your
| position; please dear god spare us all the waste of time reading
| your emails if that's how you're going to push for what you want...
Not at all. Your argument could be rephrased like this: There ar
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:12:40 +0100 "Stuart Herbert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| As the default USE flags are metadata about the package (not the
| profile), it makes sense to store that data in the ebuild, along with
| the rest of the package's metadata.
No no on. Default
Simon Stelling wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
I would go for the EAPI bump. Even then I think it would be smart to
wait a short while for packages to use this as we ensure that the
supporting portage version is stable.
Err, EAPI was designed to assure that a supporting version is actually
used
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700
> Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
>> which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar
>> with.
>
> In a
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
> which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar
> with.
In a discussion about bug 151586 we realized that there might be an
issue with profil
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:16:06 -0700
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did I miss the part that says package.use allows arbitrary tokens
> rather than just CP? If so, my bad.
Every implementation of it that I've seen allows an arbitrary dep atom.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:56:00 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > There is a solution that provides all of the functionality of the
> | > other, along with some functionality that the other does not
> | > provide, without the drawbacks. That is a "better
On Sunday 15 October 2006 22:17, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:43:19 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | per-package IUSE defaults comes after everything else ... so if you
> | want to change the default in the profile, nothing is stopping you
> | from doing exactly that
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:59:27 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I don't see how the location of the default USE affects these things.
Searching across an entire tree, plus in things that can be defined in
eclasses, is a pain in the ass.
| However I still belie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:43:19 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | per-package IUSE defaults comes after everything else ... so if you
> | want to change the default in the profile, nothing is stopping you
> | f
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:43:19 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| per-package IUSE defaults comes after everything else ... so if you
| want to change the default in the profile, nothing is stopping you
| from doing exactly that
Which means that arch people are screwed if they need to
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:59:27 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I don't see how the location of the default USE affects these things.
Searching across an entire tree, plus in things that can be defined in
eclasses, is a pain in the ass.
| However I still believe there exist examples w
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:01:58 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > Yup. Default USE flags are profile dependent data. The sensible
> | > default value varies depending upon conditions like arch and system
> | > role.
> | >
> |
> |
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Danny van Dyk wrote:
>>From my point of view as an architecture dev and releng member: Having
> all default USE-flags at one spot (per profile) _is_ easier to maintain.
>
> Ciaran has a point here: Default useflags have annoyed me in the past
> while
On Sunday 15 October 2006 19:54, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> From my point of view as an architecture dev and releng member: Having
> all default USE-flags at one spot (per profile) _is_ easier to maintain.
these arent arch or profile specific issues ... these are maintainers
themselves being able to
Am Montag, 16. Oktober 2006 00:59 schrieb Alec Warner:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > |
> > | Uh, what kind of conflicting behaviour and what sanity checks are
> > | you talking about here? Did you _really_ miss the whole point of
> > | this feature?
> >
> > Before changing default values for USE fla
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:25:42 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
| > The profiles change over time. Currently, when the profiles change,
| > the only thing that has to be checked for conflicting USE behaviour
| > is subprofiles. With IUSE
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:25:42 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
| > The profiles change over time. Currently, when the profiles change,
| > the only thing that has to be checked for conflicting USE behaviour
| > is subprofiles. With IUSE defaults, the person mak
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> The profiles change over time. Currently, when the profiles change, the
> only thing that has to be checked for conflicting USE behaviour is
> subprofiles. With IUSE defaults, the person making the change will also
> have to do a sanity check over the entire tree.
Uh,
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:15:19 -0700 Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 22:01 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:35:10 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | > Which is why I suggested changing Portage's behaviour earlier
| > | > in th
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:44:09 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
| > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:19:03 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | > You mean, than sticking a + before foo in IUSE in every ebuild,
| > | > and ensuring that changes are kept in
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:19:03 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > You mean, than sticking a + before foo in IUSE in every ebuild, and
> | > ensuring that changes are kept in sync and consistent with the
> | > behaviour of every single existing profile.
> |
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:19:03 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > You mean, than sticking a + before foo in IUSE in every ebuild, and
| > ensuring that changes are kept in sync and consistent with the
| > behaviour of every single existing profile.
|
| Erm, what are you talking about her
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:35:10 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > Which is why I suggested changing Portage's behaviour earlier in the
> | > thread. Like it or not, overlays are already getting complex enough
> | > that they'd benefit from profile behaviour.
On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 22:01 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:35:10 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > Which is why I suggested changing Portage's behaviour earlier in the
> | > thread. Like it or not, overlays are already getting complex enough
> | > that they'd
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:01:58 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Yup. Default USE flags are profile dependent data. The sensible
| > default value varies depending upon conditions like arch and system
| > role.
| >
|
| I disagree; they are not all profile dep
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Yup. Default USE flags are profile dependent data. The sensible default
value varies depending upon conditions like arch and system role.
I disagree; they are not all profile dependent. The point here being
you can argue all your like; it's like me liking pink rather
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:35:10 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Which is why I suggested changing Portage's behaviour earlier in the
| > thread. Like it or not, overlays are already getting complex enough
| > that they'd benefit from profile behaviour.
|
| Because maintaining your own
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:05:09 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 08:37:48PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:27:20 -0700 Brian Harring
> | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > | Ebuilds already have a boat
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:05:09 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 08:37:48PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:27:20 -0700 Brian Harring
| > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | Ebuilds already have a boatload of duplication;
| >
| > They have
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 08:37:48PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:27:20 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Ebuilds already have a boatload of duplication;
>
> They have no duplication related to whether a USE flag is enabled.
...Because until up until now
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:27:20 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ebuilds already have a boatload of duplication;
They have no duplication related to whether a USE flag is enabled.
| bit of a red herring
| however complaining about a single char in IUSE to indicate a flag
| defaults
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 08:22:01PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 15:09:32 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | On Sunday 15 October 2006 14:16, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:09:58 -0400 Mike Frysinger
> | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | > | wha
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 15:09:32 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Sunday 15 October 2006 14:16, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:09:58 -0400 Mike Frysinger
| > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > | what are you talking about ? the point of having per-package
| > | defaults is
On Sunday 15 October 2006 14:16, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:09:58 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | what are you talking about ? the point of having per-package
> | defaults is so that you can enable a flag by default in one package
> | only
>
> package != ebuild.
>
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:09:58 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| what are you talking about ? the point of having per-package
| defaults is so that you can enable a flag by default in one package
| only
package != ebuild.
| to take the oss example, we would want to remove that from
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:14:34 -0400 Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I don't think there is "The One Correct Way" here; it's purely an
| arbitrary choice. I'd prefer to let people do it either way.
And I'd prefer that it all be kept in one place, to avoid making what's
already fairly conf
On Saturday 14 October 2006 21:46, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> As opposed to having to keep multiple ebuilds in sync, which is even
> harder because they're not all in the same location.
what are you talking about ? the point of having per-package defaults is so
that you can enable a flag by defaul
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:12:40 +0100 "Stuart Herbert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| As the default USE flags are metadata about the package (not the
| profile), it makes sense to store that data in the ebuild, along with
| the rest of the package's metadata.
No no on. Default
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:12:40 +0100 "Stuart Herbert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| As the default USE flags are metadata about the package (not the
| profile), it makes sense to store that data in the ebuild, along with
| the rest of the package's metadata.
No no on. Default USE flags are a property
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 04:49:39 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Saturday 14 October 2006 04:00, Richard Brown wrote:
| > man portage says that package.use is one depend atom per line.
|
| that addresses the "we can do it" but not the "we should do it"
|
| maintaining a large lis
On Saturday 14 October 2006 04:00, Richard Brown wrote:
> man portage says that package.use is one depend atom per line.
that addresses the "we can do it" but not the "we should do it"
maintaining a large list of defaults in a profile is ugly ... instead of
having all the information self contai
On 13/10/06, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 13 October 2006 09:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
> | which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that ever
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've written a patch for portage [1] that implements per-package
> default USE flags at both the ebuild and profile levels (discussed a
> couple of mont
On Friday 13 October 2006 09:54, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
> | which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar
> | with. The intention is that the IUS
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:08:36 -0700,
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If a flag is supposed to be resisant to -*, then
> use.force/package.use.force are the existing ways to accomplish that.
Arrh, i had completly forgotten that you had added *use.force files
support already. Well, sorry fo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700,
> Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Aside from being package specific, the per-package default USE flags
>> behave much like USE flags that are currently listed in profil
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:57:58 +0200
Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, if "pkgprofile" was stronger than "conf", then this dev could
> have introduced the "xml" flag and added "pkg/foo -xml" in the base
> profile. And the USE="xml" user would either have merged the pac
On 10/13/06, Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The examples he gave were of flags that should be enabled by default
for every package that uses them. Even if that's just one or two
packages, there's no reason not to put them in global defaults.
That's one way. I know some folks prefer
On 10/13/06, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Except that a USE flag's state isn't metadata. It's something that
comes from the profile.
The default USE flags, enabled to reflect the same results as running
./configure w/ no enable/disable flags, _is_ metadata; metadata about
an indiv
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700,
Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aside from being package specific, the per-package default USE flags
> behave much like USE flags that are currently listed in profiles'
> make.defaults. The flags are stacked incrementally as usual. The
> ebuild level d
Jakub Moc wrote:
> Yeah, the big picture here is that make.defaults has been bloated by use
> flags needed/relevant for one or two ebuilds only for quite some time
> and users and devs alike have been ranting about the same for quite some
> time...
Bloated doesn't even apply here. Why does anyone
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:09:32 +0100 "Stuart Herbert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| The downside of it (and it's a big one) is that we'd be putting
| metadata about a package into a profile, instead of into the ebuild
| where arguably it belongs - and where the rest of the metadata already
| is.
Exce
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:28:54 +0100
"Stuart Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They should be enabled by default _only_ for the package that needs
> them enabled. Support for package.use in profiles gives us that,
> allowing us to override the package maintainer's defaults included in
> each eb
On 10/13/06, Stephen Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sure they do. They should be enabled by default, so put them in the
place where the default USE flags are set.
They should be enabled by default _only_ for the package that needs
them enabled. Support for package.use in profiles gives us
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:00:07 +0200
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Those plain don't make sense in make.defaults.
Sure they do. They should be enabled by default, so put them in the
place where the default USE flags are set.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:00:07 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Those plain don't make sense in make.defaults.
So you'd rather stick them in lots of ebuilds rather than one profile
file?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org
Web : http://ciaran
On 10/13/06, Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah, the big picture here is that make.defaults has been bloated by use
flags needed/relevant for one or two ebuilds only for quite some time
and users and devs alike have been ranting about the same for quite some
time...
I believe Ciaran's sa
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:29:57 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > Hardly bloat... And far less so that having the same data across
> | > zillions of different ebuilds. Or rather, confusingly slightly
> | > different data, which is how it'll end up...
> |
> | A
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Am I misunderstanding something?
On re-reading this for the third or fourth time, I finally get it. IUSE
defaults from the ebuild (+foo, etc), not IUSE defaults at the profile
level.
Thanks,
Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Zac Medico wrote:
> The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used for default flags that
> should be enabled regardless of profile. Then, package.use will be used for
> flags
> that might vary depending on the profile.
I don't understand the reasoning of this. Could you expand on it?
Wha
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:29:57 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Hardly bloat... And far less so that having the same data across
| > zillions of different ebuilds. Or rather, confusingly slightly
| > different data, which is how it'll end up...
|
| Apparently missed the whole point, s
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:32:33 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | > wrote:
> | > | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
> | > | which behaves lik
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:32:33 +0200 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
| > | which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that eve
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
| which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar
| with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used for
| de
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
Are you saying you like a bunch of php-only USE flags (I'm not picking
on php...it was just the first that came to mind) being in the default
USE in the profile?
Do you also like the nofoo flags? AFAIK, previous discussions said that
the per-ebuild default USE would go i
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:24:52 -0500 Andrew Gaffney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
| > | which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use tha
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
> | which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar
> | with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
| which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar
| with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used for
| de
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:59 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| At the profile level, I've added support for package.use
| which behaves like /etc/portage/package.use that everyone is familiar
| with. The intention is that the IUSE defaults will be used for
| default flags that should b
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:53:27 +0200
Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > I would go for the EAPI bump. Even then I think it would be smart
> > to wait a short while for packages to use this as we ensure that
> > the supporting portage version is stable.
>
> Err, EA
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
I would go for the EAPI bump. Even then I think it would be smart to
wait a short while for packages to use this as we ensure that the
supporting portage version is stable.
Err, EAPI was designed to assure that a supporting version is actually
used, no need to wait then.
On 10/13/06, Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would go for the EAPI bump. Even then I think it would be smart to
wait a short while for packages to use this as we ensure that the
supporting portage version is stable.
+1 from me on that.
Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mai
Zac Medico wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've written a patch for portage [1] that implements per-package default USE
flags at
both the ebuild and profile levels (discussed a couple of months ago [2] on this
list). At the ebuild level, default flags are specified in IUSE with a +
prefix as
described in
Zac Medico wrote:
> Should we include support in portage for one or both types of per-package
> default USE
> flags? If support is included for IUSE defaults now, we won't be able to use
> them in
> the tree until after a waiting period or an EAPI bump [4].
Great, this will be very useful, so +
Hi Zac,
On 10/13/06, Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've written a patch for portage [1] that implements per-package default USE
flags at
both the ebuild and profile levels (discussed a couple of months ago [2] on this
list). At the ebuild level, default flags are specified in IUSE with
87 matches
Mail list logo
