On Thursday 11 August 2005 21:26, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 11 August 2005 07:02 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 August 2005 09:04, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 10 August 2005 07:56 pm, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > > I was referring to compiler version. Portage FEATURE
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:03:13 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 11 August 2005 09:40 am, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > If you read it again you'll notice the {pre,post} part ;)
> > IIRC that's already in HEAD for /etc/portage/bashrc, so extending
> > it to $PORTDIR shouldn't b
On Thursday 11 August 2005 09:40 am, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:26:49 -0400
>
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 August 2005 07:02 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > With noman and the like, how's the following for a solution? A lot
> > > of the ebuild funct
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:26:49 -0400
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 11 August 2005 07:02 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > With noman and the like, how's the following for a solution? A lot
> > of the ebuild functions contained within portage will be moving
> > into the tree once
On Thursday 11 August 2005 07:02 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Thursday 11 August 2005 09:04, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 August 2005 07:56 pm, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > I was referring to compiler version. Portage FEATURES are not a
> > > guaranteed part of an ebuild's "shell". Let me
On Thursday 11 August 2005 09:04, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 August 2005 07:56 pm, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 August 2005 00:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 10 August 2005 11:24 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 10 August 2005 22:19, Ciaran McCreesh
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 07:56 pm, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Thursday 11 August 2005 00:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 August 2005 11:24 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 10 August 2005 22:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:10:39 -0400 Michael Cummin
On Thursday 11 August 2005 00:31, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:24:54 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> wrote:
> | On Wednesday 10 August 2005 22:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:10:39 -0400 Michael Cummings
> | >
> | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On Thursday 11 August 2005 00:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 August 2005 11:24 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 August 2005 22:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:10:39 -0400 Michael Cummings
> > >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > | (not directed at
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 03:29 pm, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 August 2005 21:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Doesn't solve the SRC_URI problem.
>
> Point taken. Doesn't help that this expansion stuff is fugly, imho.
it is a bit on the fugly side but afaict, it's the best we got atm
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 21:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Doesn't solve the SRC_URI problem.
Point taken. Doesn't help that this expansion stuff is fugly, imho.
Carsten
pgpf2HCETwZ68.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:54:42 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > Uh, the way I suggested needs no portage changes.
|
| My bad. I don't like the feature flag approach and would say a
| TDEPEND would be in order.
Doesn't solve the SRC_URI problem.
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Devel
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 20:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Check the cache instead.
My cache doesn't include the whole cvs tree, but I don't see what should be
different.
> Uh, the way I suggested needs no portage changes.
My bad. I don't like the feature flag approach and would say a TDEPEND
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:25:10 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Wednesday 10 August 2005 19:45, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > You didn't count very well... And you're only picking up the ones
|
| Don't know what should be wrong with
|
| find . -iname "*\.ebuild" -exec grep -H IUSE
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 02:25 pm, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 August 2005 19:45, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > that're using USE=test, not the ones that have unlisted test
> > dependencies, forced optional dependencies or tests disabled to avoid
> > the dep.
>
> I answered Diego. You p
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 19:45, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> You didn't count very well... And you're only picking up the ones
Don't know what should be wrong with
find . -iname "*\.ebuild" -exec grep -H IUSE {} \; | grep test
> that're using USE=test, not the ones that have unlisted test
> depen
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 02:13 pm, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 August 2005 19:26, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > oh, you mean like portage ?
>
> Eh? Of course in $D, not global. I see no reason for "noman" being feature
> flag. Don't care about it though.
i mean your suggestion of adding
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 19:26, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> oh, you mean like portage ?
Eh? Of course in $D, not global. I see no reason for "noman" being feature
flag. Don't care about it though.
Carsten
pgpDy0C18phXB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:07:31 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Wednesday 10 August 2005 18:19, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
| > Just look at how much packages there are which has a "test" useflag
| > to add dependencies. There are quite a few.
|
| I counted 7 - seven - packa
On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 13:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> sorry, but there's no chance in hell i'm gonna hardcode the dejagnu dependency
Phew! Glad to hear that :)
./Brix
--
Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd
signature.asc
Description: Thi
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 01:07 pm, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 August 2005 18:19, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> > Just look at how much packages there are which has a "test" useflag to
> > add dependencies. There are quite a few.
>
> I counted 7 - seven - packages and toolchain-
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 18:19, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Just look at how much packages there are which has a "test" useflag to add
> dependencies. There are quite a few.
I counted 7 - seven - packages and toolchain-binutils.eclass. That's not even
a thousandth part of the tree. Come
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 18:06, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> TESTDEPEND!? Are there numbers how many packages are affected and what
> dependencies are in question, which are usually not available on every box
> anyways?
Just look at how much packages there are which has a "test" useflag to add
depen
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:06:30 +0200 Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Wednesday 10 August 2005 17:31, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Then please introduce TESTDEPEND, MANDEPEND and INFODEPEND instead.
|
| TESTDEPEND!? Are there numbers how many packages are affected and
| what dependencies
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 17:31, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Then please introduce TESTDEPEND, MANDEPEND and INFODEPEND instead.
TESTDEPEND!? Are there numbers how many packages are affected and what
dependencies are in question, which are usually not available on every box
anyways? This getting
maillog: 10/08/2005-17:14:59(+0200): Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò types
> On Wednesday 10 August 2005 15:16, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > in that case we're screwed because there are plans to make people use
> > INSTALL_MASK and drop the FEATURES no{man,doc,info}
> The problem is that noman and noinfo do
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 11:24 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 August 2005 22:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:10:39 -0400 Michael Cummings
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | (not directed at dsd in particular, just the last one in my inbox
> > | to reply :)
Jason Stubbs wrote:
Personally, I think adding FEATURES to USE_EXPAND is terrible. Portage
features are not ebuild features. How much do you like C code that has
#ifdef's for the compiler being used? It's the same thing.
what wrong with #ifdef __cplusplus__? ;)
--
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:24:54 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Wednesday 10 August 2005 22:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:10:39 -0400 Michael Cummings
| >
| > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | (not directed at dsd in particular, just the last one in my inbox
|
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 22:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:10:39 -0400 Michael Cummings
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | (not directed at dsd in particular, just the last one in my inbox
> | to reply :) That's great and all that its in features for the
> | installation, bu
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 15:16, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> in that case we're screwed because there are plans to make people use
> INSTALL_MASK and drop the FEATURES no{man,doc,info}
The problem is that noman and noinfo doesn't just avoid installing man pages
and info cru^Wstuff, they also avoid m
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 09:19 am, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:10:39 -0400 Michael Cummings
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | (not directed at dsd in particular, just the last one in my inbox
> | to reply :) That's great and all that its in features for the
> | installation,
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 15:10, Michael Cummings wrote:
> That's great and all that its in features for the
> installation, but what about packages with optional dependencies based
> on doc and man?
Well there was a request time ago to add FEATURES (or at least a subset of
them) to USE_EXPAND s
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:10:39 -0400 Michael Cummings
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| (not directed at dsd in particular, just the last one in my inbox
| to reply :) That's great and all that its in features for the
| installation, but what about packages with optional dependencies based
| on doc and ma
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 09:10 am, Michael Cummings wrote:
> (not directed at dsd in particular, just the last one in my inbox
> to reply :) That's great and all that its in features for the
> installation, but what about packages with optional dependencies based
> on doc and man?
in that case
(not directed at dsd in particular, just the last one in my inbox
to reply :) That's great and all that its in features for the
installation, but what about packages with optional dependencies based
on doc and man?
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:20:04 +0100
Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FEATU
On Wednesday 10 August 2005 14:09, Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:
> I have been thinking about this for the past few days, and haven't
> been able to come up with an answer to why there isn't a "man" USE
> flag for people to enable man pages getting installed.
FEATURES="noman" disable man page insta
Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:
Hey everybody.
I have been thinking about this for the past few days, and haven't
been able to come up with an answer to why there isn't a "man" USE
flag for people to enable man pages getting installed.
FEATURES="noman" ?
Daniel
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing
10.8.2005, 14:09:46, Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:
> Not everybody needs the man pages, but installing them as default is
> good, but currently, there is no way to deselect them.
> What do you think?
I think you should read 'man make.conf' (FEATURES="noman nodoc noinfo") ;p
--
Best regards,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hey everybody.
I have been thinking about this for the past few days, and haven't
been able to come up with an answer to why there isn't a "man" USE
flag for people to enable man pages getting installed.
My idea is to make a global use flag, that are
40 matches
Mail list logo
