Neil Bothwick digimed.co.uk> writes:
> > I think we need to get away from solutions that clutter up
> > configuration in the first place. I'm not under any illusions that
> > this will ever be perfect, but I do think we can do better.
Amen.
> Agreed, but this is about managing the options we
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Grant Edwards
wrote:
>
> I prefer it this way. I do not want all the nice easy-to read/edit
> configuration stuff in /etc/portage encrypted some Windows Registry
> break-alike.
Nobody is proposing any changes to the format of package.use.
The only proposal is th
On 2015-04-02, Róbert Čerňanský wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:41:10 +0100
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 07:21:01 +0200, Róbert Čerňanský wrote:
>>
>> > Besides there is such database now - it is your (abused)
>> > package.use! You have to manually add entries to it and I do not
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Sebastian Beßler
wrote:
> On 01.04.2015 19:28, Róbert Čerňanský wrote:
>
>> Big advantage of automatic deps over --autounmask is that auto deps
>> would not mess with user configuration files in /etc. Changed USE
>> flags would be stored internally by portage.
>
>
On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 11:29:33 +0200, Róbert Čerňanský wrote:
> > Portage doesn't change your package.use file, it creates a new one
> > using the standard CONFIG_PROTECT process. Then you use etc-update or
> > similar to view and verify the changes.
>
> What I am trying to tell is that portage ma
On Monday 30 March 2015 22:23:21 James wrote:
> package.use via automask is getting a bit out of hand, already.
> Somehow, I do not feel good about the devs solution is to
> munge up something I have already been abusing. So, does
> 'eix-test-obsolete' have some automated option to clean up
> pack
On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:41:10 +0100
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 07:21:01 +0200, Róbert Čerňanský wrote:
>
> > Besides there is such database now - it is your (abused)
> > package.use! You have to manually add entries to it and I do not
> > know any database slower than human typing t
On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 07:21:01 +0200, Róbert Čerňanský wrote:
> Besides there is such database now - it is your (abused) package.use!
> You have to manually add entries to it and I do not know any database
> slower than human typing to a text file ;-) (There is autounmask option
> of course but then
On Thu, 02 Apr 2015 06:42:49 +0200
Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> On 01.04.2015 19:28, Róbert Čerňanský wrote:
>
> > Big advantage of automatic deps over --autounmask is that auto deps
> > would not mess with user configuration files in /etc. Changed USE
> > flags would be stored internally by porta
On 01.04.2015 19:28, Róbert Čerňanský wrote:
Big advantage of automatic deps over --autounmask is that auto deps
would not mess with user configuration files in /etc. Changed USE
flags would be stored internally by portage.
Ok, but then you need a database (another file in /etc/portage/) for
On 03/30/2015 02:52 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> I was also wondering if there might a way for emerge to show you which
> packages have USE flags enabled that aren't required by any dependent
> package: it would be sort of like "emerge --depclean" but for USE
> flags instead of packages themselves
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:14:55 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 30/03/2015 12:42, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:14:29 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >
> >>> OK, then so why do I have to edit files to tell the system to USE
> >>> this and that after the system tells me it needs
Peter Humphrey prh.myzen.co.uk> writes:
> On Sunday 29 March 2015 20:12:45 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > grep -ir qt /etc/portage
grep qt /etc/portage/package.use | wc -l =11
dev-qt/qt-creator android autotools cmake python
dev-qt/qtguiqt3support
>=dev-qt/qtsql-4.8.5 qt3support
>
On 2015-03-30, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 19:46:54 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> The reason is that somebody wanted their system to be "consistent." I
>> don't think that's a particulary good reason, but that's the nice
>> thing aboug Gentoo. Everybody gets to decide what
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 19:46:54 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
> >>> The news item also showed how to make it a global choice, avoiding
> >>> the need to multiple per-package directories.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure that's a solution to the problem at all (which is why I
> >> didn't do it on my machin
On 2015-03-30, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> On Monday, March 30, 2015 9:09:14 PM Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>> Maybe it's time we asked the multilib devs how they intended to deal
>> with these questions you raise.
>
> I don't have a problem with the way it is, but I think something like
> the followin
On 2015-03-30, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 30/03/2015 15:04, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:44:59 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:15:01 + (UTC), Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>>>
> Portage does not override your choices, and it certainly does not
> a
On Monday, March 30, 2015 9:09:14 PM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 30/03/2015 15:04, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:44:59 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:15:01 + (UTC), Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> >>
> Portage does not override your choices, and
On 30/03/2015 15:04, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:44:59 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:15:01 + (UTC), Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>>
Portage does not override your choices, and it certainly does not
allow one single ebuild to automagically c
On Monday 30 March 2015 15:34:55 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> At least we will now be spared the messages from [...] perl-cleaner about
> binary packages that won't change no matter how many time we reinstall
> them.
That certainly is an improvement, yes. I was always unsure how safe I was in
ignoring
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:04:47 + (UTC), Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> > The news item also showed how to make it a global choice, avoiding the
> > need to multiple per-package directories.
>
> I'm not sure that's a solution to the problem at all (which is why I
> didn't do it on my machines eith
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:44:59 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:15:01 + (UTC), Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>
>> > Portage does not override your choices, and it certainly does not
>> > allow one single ebuild to automagically change the behaviour of
>> > multiple other ebuilds.
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:15:01 + (UTC), Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> > Portage does not override your choices, and it certainly does not
> > allow one single ebuild to automagically change the behaviour of
> > multiple other ebuilds. The correct way to bring about changes in
> > behaviour is to ad
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:14:55 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 30/03/2015 12:42, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>>> You want skype. Skype is 32bit. So far, we're good. You put an entry in
>>> package.use to enable abi_x86_32 for skype.
>>
>> Except..at that point you would have already failed.
>
> That
On 30/03/2015 12:42, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:14:29 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>>> OK, then so why do I have to edit files to tell the system to USE this
>>> and that after the system tells me it needs that ... ?
>>>
>>> Why isn't this taken care of within portage itsel
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:14:29 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> OK, then so why do I have to edit files to tell the system to USE this
>> and that after the system tells me it needs that ... ?
>>
>> Why isn't this taken care of within portage itself?
>>
>> I don't *want* to decide 32bit or not ... (
(crossposting to -dev since this is fairly high-impact)
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 30/03/15 03:43, waben...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I also have dev-qt/qtcore-4.8.5-r2 and some other qt packages installed
>> but I had no problems with that.
>>
>> I'm on gentoo sta
On 03/29/2015 07:27 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> If you're on stable, you'll need to keyword qt-4.8.6 in its entirety.
> You can't mix and match versions, and 4.8.6 is the only one that
> supports multilib.
Hm, a little documentation wouldn't hurt, don't you think?
This guy has written a whole a
On 30/03/15 03:43, waben...@gmail.com wrote:
> Mick wrote:
>
>> On Sunday 29 Mar 2015 17:08:32 Yanestra wrote:
>>> On 03/29/2015 05:03 PM, waben...@gmail.com wrote:
"In most of the cases, Portage will be able to deliver correct
suggestions for that when using the --autounmask feature.
>
29 matches
Mail list logo
