On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:23:29 -0600
R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what other than equery would need to be fixed to recognize
> the overlay? is there anything that would explicitly break if a
> USE flag was in both use.desc and use.local.desc?
>
Last time this feature was discussed here, i
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
Here's my question... use.local.desc is already package-specific, so why
would we need yet *another* place to put package-specific definitions?
Would it not be enough to have use.local.desc overlay on use.desc? If
package foo uses global USE flag bar in a way different f
Bruno internet.lu> writes:
>
> On Monday 10 October 2005 14:53, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> >
> > Here's my question... use.local.desc is already package-specific, so why
> > would we need yet *another* place to put package-specific definitions?
> > Would it not be enough to have use.local.desc ov
On Monday 10 October 2005 14:53, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>
> Here's my question... use.local.desc is already package-specific, so why
> would we need yet *another* place to put package-specific definitions?
> Would it not be enough to have use.local.desc overlay on use.desc? If
> package foo uses
On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 15:13 -0600, R Hill wrote:
> Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 21:22 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >> We've discussed adding this to metadata.xml a few times in the past,
> >> but every time there was opposition from a vocal minority of one who
> >> claimed t
Martin Schlemmer wrote:
On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 21:22 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
We've discussed adding this to metadata.xml a few times in the past,
but every time there was opposition from a vocal minority of one who
claimed that USE flags should always do exactly the same thing for
every pac
