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,
23 matches
Mail list logo
