On 21/04/16 11:31 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, K, 20.04.2016 kell 22:18, kirjutas Mart Raudsepp: >> Basically the only real point I have is that anything kernel_* to >> control this probably doesn't make sense. >> > > Oh, just to clarify and avoid misunderstanding: > I did not intend to ack the changes to gdk-pixbuf and gtk+ with my > message, even if the flag name is changed. > It sounds to me like we have some refactoring to do in those ebuilds > together with aqua in mind as well, once we have agreed on the future > global USE flag name. > I also vote 'no' to the profiles changes, because we don't have 6+ > packages with the flag yet to make it global use flag quite yet (though > it would make sense once we do, and in essence it is a global one that > needs masking in other profiles, etc - fiddly with local use flag). > > Once this thread has concluded on a naming, I'm sure we can have a > productive gtk/gdk-pixbuf review via IRC :) > > > Mart >
Ok, so to summarize: a) +1 for a USE flag instead of KERNEL/ELIBC (that's 4 in favour, 2 against i think?) b) -1 for making it global right now pending resolution of logistics for the profiles/base/use.mask entry, c) rejection for the proposed ebuild patches pending a toolkit refactoring to be determined later. B and C make most of this thread pretty well moot, I guess, but following A, can we decide that USE="winapi" could be a good flag name? If nobody objects I'll use that when leio and I work on the refactoring of gtk+ and likely try to use local flags somehow for now.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
