Le Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:28:05 -0500,
Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> By allowing duplicate entries we just allow people to put useless
> information in two places instead of one.
>
Maybe i'm a bit naive, but that sounds very pessimistic to me. I would
rather think that devs who will a
Le Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:39:22 -0600,
R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> TGL did some work on this under bug #84884, though his changes are
> more invasive than what i had in mind. I don't see the need for
> portage to dig through use.*desc when euse already works and equery
> can pretty easily
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 22:19:29 -0500 Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I don't see this as a groundbreaking change that requires a GLEP or
| anything, especially since I eliminated most of the duplicates today,
| after talking with the respective maintainers. There are probably
| only 3 or 4
Mark Loeser wrote:
R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Anyways I just like anything that makes use.desc more useful than
foo - adds support for foo
That's really a completely separate issue. By allowing duplicate entries we
just allow people to put useless information in two places instead of o
R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Anyways I just like anything that makes use.desc more useful than
>
> foo - adds support for foo
That's really a completely separate issue. By allowing duplicate entries we
just allow people to put useless information in two places instead of one.
--
Mark Loe
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:49:55 -0500
Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On a more global scale, we should decide if this is valid though. I
haven't exactly been convinced that it is useful, but I'm not opposed
to the idea. I'd just like to see a decision one way or another
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Yeah, unfortunately none of the people proposing the idea ever wrote a
> glep or even filed a bug regarding this (AFAIK), also as the quoted
> threads show there are a number of possible solutions for this.
It doesn't seem that too many people feel strongly
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:49:55 -0500
Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > IIRC the idea behind duplication was not to use a flag for different
> > purposes, but have a generic description in use.desc (like "doc:
> > build additional docs") and give a mo
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> IIRC the idea behind duplication was not to use a flag for different
> purposes, but have a generic description in use.desc (like "doc: build
> additional docs") and give a more detailed description in
> use.local.desc (like "doc: build API docs and manual a
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:49:26 +0100
Simon Stelling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R Hill wrote:
> > a global USE flag duplicated in use.local.desc could be used to
> > give specific information about exactly what effect the flag has on
> > a certain package, or if for some reason it does differ sligh
R Hill wrote:
> a global USE flag duplicated in use.local.desc could be used to give specific
> information about exactly what effect the flag has on a certain package, or if
> for some reason it does differ slightly from the global meaning.
>
> global use flags (searching: doc)
>
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 03:19:25 -0500 Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | So, what do we want to do about this? Should we have some repoman
> | warning if a USE flag exists in both files, or should it be
> | acceptable?
>
> The whole idea of global USE flags is that
12 matches
Mail list logo
