On Sunday 15 July 2007, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2007-07-15 21:22:07 Mike Frysinger napisał(a):
> > On Sunday 15 July 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> > > the day you switch from IUSE="nocxx" to IUSE="+cxx", will you
> > > remember that, as a consequence, you have to f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
2007-07-15 21:22:07 Mike Frysinger napisał(a):
> On Sunday 15 July 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> > the day you switch from IUSE="nocxx" to IUSE="+cxx", will you
> > remember that, as a consequence, you have to fix hardened/2.6/minimal
> >
On Sunday 15 July 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> My point is just that it doesn't work that well with the USE_ORDER that
> have been chosen. Even keeping the "-* in make.conf" case appart
> (obviously my opinion on how it should behave was not widely shared, i
> can live with that), the
On 2007/07/15, Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:53:08 +0200
> Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > My point is just that it doesn't work that well with the USE_ORDER
> > that have been chosen. Even keeping the "-* in make.conf" case
> > appa
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:53:08 +0200
Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2007/07/10, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > for some flags yes ... for others, i dislike that idea for the exact
> > same reason for the other profile-based suggestions: these defaults
>
On 2007/07/10, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> for some flags yes ... for others, i dislike that idea for the exact
> same reason for the other profile-based suggestions: these defaults
> should live in the ebuild, not the profile
I agree that putting per-package defaults in ebuilds i
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> On 2007/07/10, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the no* flags were introduced more to address default behavior than
> > the -* case, so yes we can kick many of the no* USE flags
>
> To address only the default behavior, addi
On 2007/07/10, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> the no* flags were introduced more to address default behavior than
> the -* case, so yes we can kick many of the no* USE flags
>
To address only the default behavior, adding "foo" to the profile USE
instead of using a "nofoo" flag wo
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> On 2007/07/10, Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - we could finally kick all the no* USE flags. USE flags are use
> > flags - they determine what should be used. not what should not be
> > used...
>
> Because of the way USE fl
On 2007/07/10, Thilo Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - we could finally kick all the no* USE flags. USE flags are use
> flags - they determine what should be used. not what should not be
> used...
Because of the way USE flags stack in Portage (the USE_ORDER variable),
IUSE defaults are not a
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature
> > > on the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
> > On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>> As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on
> >>> the grounds that it's un
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
> On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>> As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on
>>> the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they
>>> really
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on
> > the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they
> > really offer any benefit over packa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on
> the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they
> really offer any benefit over package.use?
15 matches
Mail list logo
