On Friday 28 July 2006 23:02, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> - leave everything as is: it does work but I do not particularly like the
> nowebdav useflag tho it is better than having subversion broken.
A third option would be to wait for portage to support package level useflag
defaults.
Paul
--
P
On Friday 28 July 2006 15:40, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
> right you are. Putting the default useflag into base/make.defaults has the
> same effect as a nowebdav useflag without being a no* useflag and confusing
> with other useflags that do not have the no* bit.
>
> If there are no objections and you
Danny van Dyk wrote:
> 5 packages, and only one has nowebdav, and you want to make it a default
> USE flag? I strongly disagree here. Make it a plain useflag and notify
> users of subversion that the behaviour changed. Much better than
> informing users of the other 4 packages that the behaviour ch
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> I'd like to explain why subversion has a nowebdav useflag. Basically one
> of the features of subversion is its ability to work over the http
> protocol. Many subversion installations use the apache module to serve
> subversion (even our own overlay project does). To disable
