-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:06:02 +0200
> Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>> So I think we should add a new feature in PMS already used in Exherbo
>> EAPI, USE flags requirements [1]. That means an ebuild should be able
>> to say a USE flag
Hi,
Sebastian Pipping :
> Alexey Shvetsov wrote:
> > Hi all!
> >
> > seems smoltSendProfile doesnt work with unicode locales =)
> > 100%] x11-wm/twm-1.0.4
> > Traceback (most recent call last):
> > File
> > "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/smolt/client/sendProfile.py",
> > line 211, in """
Dne pondělí 31 Srpen 2009 01:54:00 Robin H. Johnson napsal(a):
> Per my thread on building modules and linux-info, USE=modules will be
> moving from being a local USE flag to being a global, AND it will be
> enabled by default in the base profile.
>
> Proposed description:
> -
>
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:45 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 08:16:47PM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
>> > Hi there!
>> >
>> > The new udev-145 and newer have some new kernel requirements. How should
>> > the
>> >
Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> There's also bug 251179[1], which is ugly at first glance, but shows
> that we don't really need an extra variable to control dependencies
> between USE-flags (it *is* after all a dependency).
>
> So, we can either use
>
> use1? ( =${CATEGORY}/${PVR}[use2,use3,use4] )
>
>
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Is the less expressive solution you're describing still useful enough
> to make it worthwhile? When we were doing this for Exherbo, we
> identified five types of inter-use-flag dependency:
>
Actually, I said in my email I was looking for opinions about the
feature not re
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:15:37 +0200
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> > * at least one of a b c, possibly only if d
> >
> IUSE_REQUIREMENTS="d? ( || ( a b c ) )"
Moderately eww...
> > * exactly one of a b c, possibly only if d
> >
> IUSE_REQUIREMENTS="d? ( || ( a b c ) ) a ? ( -b -c ) b ? ( -a -c ) c
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 07:27:32PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Then when the user turns on all three:
>
> * If 'd' is enabled, if 'a' is enabled, 'b' must not be enabled
> * If 'd' is enabled, if 'a' is enabled, 'c' must not be enabled
> * If 'd' is enabled, if 'b' is enabled, 'a'
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:15:37 +0200
> Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>
>>> * at least one of a b c, possibly only if d
>>>
>>>
>> IUSE_REQUIREMENTS="d? ( || ( a b c ) )"
>>
>
> Moderately eww...
>
>
>>> * exactly one of a b c, possibly only if d
>>>
>>>
dev-ran...@mail.ru wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 07:27:32PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> Then when the user turns on all three:
>>
>> * If 'd' is enabled, if 'a' is enabled, 'b' must not be enabled
>> * If 'd' is enabled, if 'a' is enabled, 'c' must not be enabled
>> * If 'd
Hi,
As you should know, GLEP 23 [1] introduced USE flags conditions in
LICENSE variable and || operator in addition of licenses groups and
ACCEPT_LICENSE variable.
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0023.html
I want to show an issue in ACCEPT_LICENSE that have to be fixed with a
new ope
Le 01/09/2009 00:12, Mounir Lamouri a écrit :
Hi,
As you should know, GLEP 23 [1] introduced USE flags conditions in
LICENSE variable and || operator in addition of licenses groups and
ACCEPT_LICENSE variable.
[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0023.html
/me still thinks LICENSE shou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ok,
Here's the list of ebuilds that feature a CONFIG_CHECK, and which ones
I've been through to check for either NONEED (already using ~option),
MODULE (builds a module so may really want to bomb out), and FIXED
(packages which I've fixed).
About hal
Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> It's even worst when we try to use ACCEPT_LICENSE to have a free
> operating system. Let's suppose 'free' in fsf free and osf free,
> LGPL-2.1 is free for both but LGPL-2 isn't and we can suppose, most
> LGPL-2 licensed packages in the tree are LGPL-2+ actually.
Are you awa
Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>> I have just committed a patch [1] that could fix it. Please try again
>> with the latest HEAD and let me know how it works for you.
>
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/smolt/client/sendProfile.py",
> line 215, in """ %
Hi,
Sebastian Pipping :
> Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> >> I have just committed a patch [1] that could fix it. Please try
> >> again with the latest HEAD and let me know how it works for you.
> >
> > Traceback (most recent call last):
> > File
> > "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/smolt/clie
Sebastian Pipping posted on Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:21:49 +0200 as excerpted:
> However I do notice that "GPL-2+" could make things easier. Why not
> introduce a license group for it like @GPL-2+ or so, instead? That would
> be transparent and use existing means.
I've always thought Gentoo needed "pl
17 matches
Mail list logo
