On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 00:05:53 -0600 Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 02:51:53 +0000 > "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ryan, I disagree with your proposal. If I enable a use flag for the > > "meta" @kde and also disable it for @kdenetwork, I don't expect my > > option for the @kde "meta" to override my option for @kdenetwork. > > As Zac proposed, an incremental stack makes more sense. Before we > > had sets, when we enabled a use flag for a meta and disabled it for > > an ebuild pulled by the meta, we never expected the option for the > > ebuild to be overridden by the option for the meta. > Yes, that's what I said. ;) > > The nested set's flags (@kde-network) override the parent set's flags > (@kde). Though I'm still not sure what happens when a package is in two unrelated sets.. @gnome: RDEPEND=">=gnome-extra/gnome-screensaver-2.22.2" @xfce4: RDEPEND="gnome-extra/gnome-screensaver" package.use: @gnome opengl @xfce -opengl -- gcc-porting, by design, by neglect treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
