Joshua Saddler wrote:
> Don't take this too harshly, but doing it this way seems entirely
> bass-ackwards to me. Why not just do one of the following:
>
> 1. Stabilize the dependencies. Make 'em all the same level. I went through
> this the other from the other side when trying to get RedNoteboo
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:04:50 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Hi,
> lately I spoted that quite few packages have optional parts bit unstable (KDE
> parts, boinc [i wont stable it until the cuda is, i wont do the work
> explained bellow :)], kipi,...).
> I really don't like the shebang about doing -r
On Saturday 10 of October 2009 22:50:37 Zac Medico wrote:
> Maybe a syntax extension for IUSE would be a little nicer. For example:
>
> IUSE="unstable? ( foo bar )"
No no no, the biggest reason for this is to not touch ebuild at all - it needs
to be fully ebuild independent.
It's like with re
Zac Medico wrote:
> Maybe a syntax extension for IUSE would be a little nicer. For example:
>
> IUSE="unstable? ( foo bar )"
>
> You could emulate this sort of extension in current EAPIs by simply
> adding IUSE="unstable" and then using that flag to conditionally
> disable things in *DEPEND, SR
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Hi,
> lately I spoted that quite few packages have optional parts bit unstable (KDE
> parts, boinc [i wont stable it until the cuda is, i wont do the work
> explained
> bellow :)], kipi,...).
> I really don't like the shebang about doing -r1 and -r50 so we keep 2
> revisi
Hi,
lately I spoted that quite few packages have optional parts bit unstable (KDE
parts, boinc [i wont stable it until the cuda is, i wont do the work explained
bellow :)], kipi,...).
I really don't like the shebang about doing -r1 and -r50 so we keep 2
revisions where one is stableable and seco
