Ühel kenal päeval, N, 21.04.2016 kell 15:42, kirjutas Ian Stakenvicius: > b) -1 for making it global right now pending resolution of logistics > for the profiles/base/use.mask entry,
I don't think it's unprecedented to just globally use.mask a USE flag even if it's not declared a global USE flag. Or more like it's common that architectures use.mask local flags used in more than one place with a clear meaning it involved a dep they don't want or can't keyword. Globally masking and unmasking in one profile is kind of similar. Those reading PMS or whatnot can speak up if needed, but I don't see a problem here. The discussion is useful, as I suspect we can get sufficient users soon enough, especially if you look into some of the other GUI stuff that can work there (e.g gitg/gedit), though the question is what's the real use of having any of these if upstream isn't looking into making use of this to build their windows binaries or whatnot. > c) rejection for the proposed ebuild patches pending a toolkit > refactoring to be determined later. Not really a rejection, it's just that I haven't looked into those patches with a review mind as of yet. It just sounds like it's worth looking at it deeper, that maybe there's more extensive improvement possibilities. So just not an ACK as of yet. > > 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.
