On Sunday 27 November 2005 17:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> A proper solution requires Portage changes. Unfortunately, for some
> packages waiting a year or more to fix something isn't an option.
Maybe not, if we just make man and info two useflags enabled by default in all
profiles and change one-
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:39:48 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came
| up, the respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper
| solution could be found. When are the quick hacks going to stop? :|
A proper s
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 16:28 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 11:12:32AM -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 00:48 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > On Monday 28 November 2005 00:05, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > > 3) FEATURES="noman" is dropped in favour of USE="man" o
On Sunday 27 November 2005 17:12, Ned Ludd wrote:
> USE=(man|info|doc) wont quite work.
> While they could have an advantage that you can use them to control
> depend strings the doc use flag has already been heavily used for other
> things which everybody surely wont want.
As vapier said, doc usef
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 11:12:32AM -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 00:48 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Monday 28 November 2005 00:05, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > 3) FEATURES="noman" is dropped in favour of USE="man" or USE="manpages"
> > >
> > > In light of the above requirements a
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 00:48 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Monday 28 November 2005 00:05, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > 3) FEATURES="noman" is dropped in favour of USE="man" or USE="manpages"
> >
> > In light of the above requirements and the fact that dyn_* will likely be
> > moved into the tree down t
On Monday 28 November 2005 00:05, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> 3) FEATURES="noman" is dropped in favour of USE="man" or USE="manpages"
>
> In light of the above requirements and the fact that dyn_* will likely be
> moved into the tree down the track, #3 seems to be the best in my mind.
> Similarly, it wou
On Sunday 27 November 2005 23:50, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 15:39, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up,
> > the respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper
> > solution could be found.
On Sunday 27 November 2005 23:43, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 27.11.2005, 15:39:48, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> >> > > Except that no{man,info
On Sunday 27 November 2005 23:50, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 15:39, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up,
> > the respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper
> > solution could be found.
On Sunday 27 November 2005 15:39, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up,
> the respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper solution
> could be found. When are the quick hacks going to stop? :|
Is my mail enough as a speak-up
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 23:39 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > > Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.
> > >
>
On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.
> >
> > They are very valuable features and quite easy to use without m
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > | Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be an
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that
> > | we can make it a sort of rule).
> > | H
On 25/11/2005 11:46:54, Marius Mauch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.
When you say 'to-die' do you mean completely removed, or do you
mean replaced with {man,info,doc} (i.e. removing inverted logic)?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:43:23 -0500 Michael Cummings
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > man pages can't be considered optional (despite what RMS says).
| > They're
| > not fancy extra HTML API documentation, they're core, so they don't
| > get a USE flag.
|
| (not advocatin
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 12:46:54PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten??"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >| Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that
> >| we can make it a sort of rule).
> >
On Friday 25 November 2005 08:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Of course, if FEATURES were in the USE expand list, you could use
> ! features_noman ? ( ) ...
All the way up until FEATURES="noman" is changed to FEATURES="man"...
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> man pages can't be considered optional (despite what RMS says). They're
not fancy extra HTML API documentation, they're core, so they don't get
a USE flag.
(not advocating a USE flag bug...) what about when the man pages are a
duplication of the native documentation?
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that
| we can make it a sort of rule).
| How should manpages that are generated be managed?
|
| The common sense and
On Friday 25 November 2005 00:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> man pages can't be considered optional (despite what RMS says). They're
> not fancy extra HTML API documentation, they're core, so they don't get
> a USE flag.
I know (and I *really* don't like info for one) but I think I'd rather disable
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that
| we can make it a sort of rule).
| How should manpages that are generated be managed?
|
| The common sense and looking to other ebuilds
23 matches
Mail list logo
