On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 05:49:37PM +0100, Chris Elston wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 17:44 +0100, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> > On 07/04/2011 05:12 PM, Chris Elston wrote:
> > >> Hi, with my Angstrom cap on I like this syntax and I think it will be
> > >> really useful.
> > >>
> > >> A second level co
On 7/4/11 11:44 AM, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> On 07/04/2011 05:12 PM, Chris Elston wrote:
>>> Hi, with my Angstrom cap on I like this syntax and I think it will be
>>> really useful.
>>>
>>> A second level concern I have is about conflicting features, its not
>>> something we will come across probabl
On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 14:58 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 12:54 +0100, Chris Elston wrote:
> > Since responses to my previous mail were generally positive, I've
> > reworked the package feature switches so that the interface is as RP
> > suggested.
> >
> > In the recipe for
On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 17:44 +0100, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> On 07/04/2011 05:12 PM, Chris Elston wrote:
> >> Hi, with my Angstrom cap on I like this syntax and I think it will be
> >> really useful.
> >>
> >> A second level concern I have is about conflicting features, its not
> >> something we will
On 07/04/2011 05:12 PM, Chris Elston wrote:
>> Hi, with my Angstrom cap on I like this syntax and I think it will be
>> really useful.
>>
>> A second level concern I have is about conflicting features, its not
>> something we will come across probably in DISTRO land as we are sensible
>> enough not
> Hi, with my Angstrom cap on I like this syntax and I think it will be
> really useful.
>
> A second level concern I have is about conflicting features, its not
> something we will come across probably in DISTRO land as we are sensible
> enough not to select them. But users could select them in l
On 07/04/2011 12:54 PM, Chris Elston wrote:
> Since responses to my previous mail were generally positive, I've
> reworked the package feature switches so that the interface is as RP
> suggested.
>
> In the recipe for foo you would have a set of features defined like
> this:
>
> PACKAGE_CONFIG[bar]
On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 12:54 +0100, Chris Elston wrote:
> Since responses to my previous mail were generally positive, I've
> reworked the package feature switches so that the interface is as RP
> suggested.
>
> In the recipe for foo you would have a set of features defined like
> this:
>
> PACKAG
Since responses to my previous mail were generally positive, I've
reworked the package feature switches so that the interface is as RP
suggested.
In the recipe for foo you would have a set of features defined like
this:
PACKAGE_CONFIG[bar] = "--enable-bar, --disable-bar, libbar"
PACKAGE_CONFIG[ba
