Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 13:41 +, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: > On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:33:52 +0100 > Pacho Ramos wrote: > > > You should be able to -* them out... -* is fine (assuming Portage > > > handles it) since we know what the null set is; it's just * that's > > > the problem. > > > > Yeah, portage handles it, but thought -* also had the same problem, > > thanks for clarifying, anyway, latest approach on only enable ptp2 by > > default looks fine for me > > No, -* is fine, so long as Portage doesn't pass it through literally. > > The problem, specifically, is that things like this are totally legal > and are done by some packages: > > IUSE="linguas_en linguas_fr" > > if use linguas_de ; then > > if has linguas_de $LINGUAS ; then > > if has linguas_de $USE ; then > > So if you were to set LINGUAS="*", there would have to be some magic > way for the package mangler to know that linguas_de exists, even if > there's no mention of it anywhere in any user config files or in IUSE > (and no, the desc files aren't a complete list either). > > The reason for this, historically, was that IUSE was used purely for > display purposes by Portage, whilst USE was worked out from everything > in config files, regardless of whether or not the ebuild claimed to use > it. That meant there was absolutely nothing stopping you from making > IUSE incomplete... > Ah, thanks for the explanation. Regards signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:33:52 +0100 Pacho Ramos wrote: > > You should be able to -* them out... -* is fine (assuming Portage > > handles it) since we know what the null set is; it's just * that's > > the problem. > > Yeah, portage handles it, but thought -* also had the same problem, > thanks for clarifying, anyway, latest approach on only enable ptp2 by > default looks fine for me No, -* is fine, so long as Portage doesn't pass it through literally. The problem, specifically, is that things like this are totally legal and are done by some packages: IUSE="linguas_en linguas_fr" if use linguas_de ; then if has linguas_de $LINGUAS ; then if has linguas_de $USE ; then So if you were to set LINGUAS="*", there would have to be some magic way for the package mangler to know that linguas_de exists, even if there's no mention of it anywhere in any user config files or in IUSE (and no, the desc files aren't a complete list either). The reason for this, historically, was that IUSE was used purely for display purposes by Portage, whilst USE was worked out from everything in config files, regardless of whether or not the ebuild claimed to use it. That meant there was absolutely nothing stopping you from making IUSE incomplete... -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 13:19 +, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: > On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:42:35 +0100 > Pacho Ramos wrote: > > Bleh, forget it, it is a headache to disable cameras then :-S > > You should be able to -* them out... -* is fine (assuming Portage > handles it) since we know what the null set is; it's just * that's the > problem. > Yeah, portage handles it, but thought -* also had the same problem, thanks for clarifying, anyway, latest approach on only enable ptp2 by default looks fine for me signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:35:42 +0100 Pacho Ramos wrote: > Do you know if there are any plans on implementing it on a future > EAPI? I think being able to simply enable all of them with "*" would > be interesting (at least in the future) It *was* in EAPI 4, since it's necessary to make [use(+)] deps work properly on USE_EXPANDed flags. It got taken out when people got sick of waiting for Portage to implement it. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:42:35 +0100 Pacho Ramos wrote: > Bleh, forget it, it is a headache to disable cameras then :-S You should be able to -* them out... -* is fine (assuming Portage handles it) since we know what the null set is; it's just * that's the problem. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:42 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:40 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:37 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> > > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:34 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > > > El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:24 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> > > > > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > > > > > El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 18:03 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > > > > > > Hello
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> > > > > > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is an updated news item for trying to cover Ciaran and Matthew
> > > > > > suggestions:
> > > > > > 1. It doesn't ask people to use USE="*"
> > > > > > 2. Before sending this, I would add all cameras to
> > > > > > base/make.defaults as
> > > > > > already done for similar cases (like alsa, lcd devices and others)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you agree with this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > no, adding all cameras is most likely a waste of time for maintainers,
> > > > > it is prone to errors when cameras get added/removed which is already
> > > > > complicated enough to maintain.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > What kind of errors will people see? As I have just tested, if I run:
> > > > CAMERAS="bbhsgdd" emerge -pv media-libs/libgphoto2
> > > >
> > > > I get no error (that would be equivalent to a camera that got removed on
> > > > a bump).
> > >
> > > I was talking about human error while adding stuff to appropriate files.
> > > It happens already often enough with just the IUSE_EXPAND feature.
> > >
> >
> > Then, as ebuild uses EAPI2, why don't enable all of them in ebuild
> > itself by default?
> > for camera in ${IUSE_CAMERAS}; do
> > - IUSE="${IUSE} cameras_${camera}"
> > + IUSE="${IUSE} +cameras_${camera}"
> > done
> >
> > Looks to work as expected here and wouldn't be prone to human errors
>
> Bleh, forget it, it is a headache to disable cameras then :-S
and it didn't work when I tried it as I said in the bug report, I guess
it depends on the version of portage and I haven't checked other PMs.
--
Gilles Dartiguelongue
Gentoo
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:41 +0100, Ulrich Mueller escribió: > > On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > > Title: Change on CAMERAS handling in libgphoto2-2.4.10 > > Too long. GLEP 42 allows a maximum of 44 characters for the title. > > > In order to not violate package manager handling > > (http://bugs.gentoo.org/346491), > > selective cameras build logic has been modified in libgphoto2-2.4.10 to > > build all > > by default, nothing if CAMERAS variable is set to an empty value and only > > the ones > > specified otherwise. > > "The text body should be wrapped at 72 characters" says GLEP 42. > > Ulrich > This should fix these issues. Also tells ptp2 is the default as talked here because it looks like the best option. OK with this? Title: Change on CAMERAS in libgphoto2-2.4.10 Author: Pacho Ramos Content-Type: text/plain Posted: 2011-02-14 Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 1.0 Display-If-Installed: http://bugs.gentoo.org/346491 for reference. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:40 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:37 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:34 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > > El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:24 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> > > > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > > > > El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 18:03 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > > > > > Hello
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> > > > > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is an updated news item for trying to cover Ciaran and Matthew
> > > > > suggestions:
> > > > > 1. It doesn't ask people to use USE="*"
> > > > > 2. Before sending this, I would add all cameras to base/make.defaults
> > > > > as
> > > > > already done for similar cases (like alsa, lcd devices and others)
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you agree with this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks :-)
> > > >
> > > > no, adding all cameras is most likely a waste of time for maintainers,
> > > > it is prone to errors when cameras get added/removed which is already
> > > > complicated enough to maintain.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What kind of errors will people see? As I have just tested, if I run:
> > > CAMERAS="bbhsgdd" emerge -pv media-libs/libgphoto2
> > >
> > > I get no error (that would be equivalent to a camera that got removed on
> > > a bump).
> >
> > I was talking about human error while adding stuff to appropriate files.
> > It happens already often enough with just the IUSE_EXPAND feature.
> >
>
> Then, as ebuild uses EAPI2, why don't enable all of them in ebuild
> itself by default?
> for camera in ${IUSE_CAMERAS}; do
> - IUSE="${IUSE} cameras_${camera}"
> + IUSE="${IUSE} +cameras_${camera}"
> done
>
> Looks to work as expected here and wouldn't be prone to human errors
Bleh, forget it, it is a headache to disable cameras then :-S
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Pacho Ramos wrote: > Title: Change on CAMERAS handling in libgphoto2-2.4.10 Too long. GLEP 42 allows a maximum of 44 characters for the title. > In order to not violate package manager handling > (http://bugs.gentoo.org/346491), > selective cameras build logic has been modified in libgphoto2-2.4.10 to build > all > by default, nothing if CAMERAS variable is set to an empty value and only the > ones > specified otherwise. "The text body should be wrapped at 72 characters" says GLEP 42. Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:37 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:34 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:24 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió:
> > > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit :
> > > > El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 18:03 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > > > > Hello
> > > > >
> > > > > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for
> > > > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is an updated news item for trying to cover Ciaran and Matthew
> > > > suggestions:
> > > > 1. It doesn't ask people to use USE="*"
> > > > 2. Before sending this, I would add all cameras to base/make.defaults as
> > > > already done for similar cases (like alsa, lcd devices and others)
> > > >
> > > > Do you agree with this?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks :-)
> > >
> > > no, adding all cameras is most likely a waste of time for maintainers,
> > > it is prone to errors when cameras get added/removed which is already
> > > complicated enough to maintain.
> > >
> >
> > What kind of errors will people see? As I have just tested, if I run:
> > CAMERAS="bbhsgdd" emerge -pv media-libs/libgphoto2
> >
> > I get no error (that would be equivalent to a camera that got removed on
> > a bump).
>
> I was talking about human error while adding stuff to appropriate files.
> It happens already often enough with just the IUSE_EXPAND feature.
>
Then, as ebuild uses EAPI2, why don't enable all of them in ebuild
itself by default?
for camera in ${IUSE_CAMERAS}; do
- IUSE="${IUSE} cameras_${camera}"
+ IUSE="${IUSE} +cameras_${camera}"
done
Looks to work as expected here and wouldn't be prone to human errors
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:34 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit : > El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:24 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió: > > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit : > > > El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 18:03 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió: > > > > Hello > > > > > > > > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for > > > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491 > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > This is an updated news item for trying to cover Ciaran and Matthew > > > suggestions: > > > 1. It doesn't ask people to use USE="*" > > > 2. Before sending this, I would add all cameras to base/make.defaults as > > > already done for similar cases (like alsa, lcd devices and others) > > > > > > Do you agree with this? > > > > > > Thanks :-) > > > > no, adding all cameras is most likely a waste of time for maintainers, > > it is prone to errors when cameras get added/removed which is already > > complicated enough to maintain. > > > > What kind of errors will people see? As I have just tested, if I run: > CAMERAS="bbhsgdd" emerge -pv media-libs/libgphoto2 > > I get no error (that would be equivalent to a camera that got removed on > a bump). I was talking about human error while adding stuff to appropriate files. It happens already often enough with just the IUSE_EXPAND feature. -- Gilles Dartiguelongue Gentoo
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 20:17 +, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:00:31 +0100 > Pacho Ramos wrote: > > If rest of gnome team agrees, I think we could go with, but I still > > fail to see what is the "technical" problem on allowing CAMERAS="*" > > to be used :-| > > 'cameras_*' isn't a valid use flag name, so the package mangler can't > just pass the * through to the ebuild, which means it has to expand the > value itself. But there's no complete list of every CAMERA value > anywhere, so it can't. > > There were plans to fix this in EAPI 4 by requiring that IUSE be > accurate. That would have allowed the package mangler to use IUSE to > get a complete list of known CAMERAS and be able to expand * that way. > Unfortunately, that feature got dropped, and so in EAPI 4 you're still > allowed to make use of USE_EXPAND variables without making sure IUSE is > complete. > Do you know if there are any plans on implementing it on a future EAPI? I think being able to simply enable all of them with "*" would be interesting (at least in the future) Thanks for the information signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
El lun, 14-02-2011 a las 11:24 +0100, Gilles Dartiguelongue escribió: > Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit : > > El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 18:03 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió: > > > Hello > > > > > > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for > > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491 > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > This is an updated news item for trying to cover Ciaran and Matthew > > suggestions: > > 1. It doesn't ask people to use USE="*" > > 2. Before sending this, I would add all cameras to base/make.defaults as > > already done for similar cases (like alsa, lcd devices and others) > > > > Do you agree with this? > > > > Thanks :-) > > no, adding all cameras is most likely a waste of time for maintainers, > it is prone to errors when cameras get added/removed which is already > complicated enough to maintain. > What kind of errors will people see? As I have just tested, if I run: CAMERAS="bbhsgdd" emerge -pv media-libs/libgphoto2 I get no error (that would be equivalent to a camera that got removed on a bump). In the case of a CAMERA addition, we would see it when bumping (as one of them wouldn't be enabled automatically). It doesn't look to complicate to maintain for me then :-/ > If someone really wants a non-null default, I suggest enabling the ptp2 > camera driver (PTP support) which is available for most cameras out > there. > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 11:15 +0100, Pacho Ramos a écrit : > El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 18:03 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió: > > Hello > > > > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491 > > > > Thanks > > > > This is an updated news item for trying to cover Ciaran and Matthew > suggestions: > 1. It doesn't ask people to use USE="*" > 2. Before sending this, I would add all cameras to base/make.defaults as > already done for similar cases (like alsa, lcd devices and others) > > Do you agree with this? > > Thanks :-) no, adding all cameras is most likely a waste of time for maintainers, it is prone to errors when cameras get added/removed which is already complicated enough to maintain. If someone really wants a non-null default, I suggest enabling the ptp2 camera driver (PTP support) which is available for most cameras out there. -- Gilles Dartiguelongue Gentoo
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 18:03 +0100, Pacho Ramos escribió: > Hello > > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491 > > Thanks > This is an updated news item for trying to cover Ciaran and Matthew suggestions: 1. It doesn't ask people to use USE="*" 2. Before sending this, I would add all cameras to base/make.defaults as already done for similar cases (like alsa, lcd devices and others) Do you agree with this? Thanks :-) Title: Change on CAMERAS handling in libgphoto2-2.4.10 Author: Pacho Ramos Content-Type: text/plain Posted: 2011-02-14 Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 1.0 Display-If-Installed: http://bugs.gentoo.org/346491), selective cameras build logic has been modified in libgphoto2-2.4.10 to build all by default, nothing if CAMERAS variable is set to an empty value and only the ones specified otherwise. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:00:31 +0100 Pacho Ramos wrote: > If rest of gnome team agrees, I think we could go with, but I still > fail to see what is the "technical" problem on allowing CAMERAS="*" > to be used :-| 'cameras_*' isn't a valid use flag name, so the package mangler can't just pass the * through to the ebuild, which means it has to expand the value itself. But there's no complete list of every CAMERA value anywhere, so it can't. There were plans to fix this in EAPI 4 by requiring that IUSE be accurate. That would have allowed the package mangler to use IUSE to get a complete list of known CAMERAS and be able to expand * that way. Unfortunately, that feature got dropped, and so in EAPI 4 you're still allowed to make use of USE_EXPAND variables without making sure IUSE is complete. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 14:00 -0600, Matthew Summers wrote: > On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Ciaran McCreesh > wrote: > > Why not specify all the CAMERAS you know about as being on by default in > > the profile? Users who care enough can override this with an explicit > > subset. > > -- > > Ciaran McCreesh > > This is how ALSA_CARDS and LCD_DEVICES are handled now. Its likely > that there are other examples too. It does provide for nice defaults > and easy user choice by override. > > How many CAMERAs are we talking here, like 20 or 200? > Around 60 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Why not specify all the CAMERAS you know about as being on by default in > the profile? Users who care enough can override this with an explicit > subset. > -- > Ciaran McCreesh This is how ALSA_CARDS and LCD_DEVICES are handled now. Its likely that there are other examples too. It does provide for nice defaults and easy user choice by override. How many CAMERAs are we talking here, like 20 or 200? -- Matthew W. Summers
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 19:34 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 20:31:23 +0100 > Pacho Ramos wrote: > > Wouldn't be any shorter way to build all CAMERAS? We don't want to > > default to enabling all, with the new way of handling this, if CAMERAS > > is not set or is empty, nothing will be built but, if CAMERAS="*" > > shouldn't be used, what should we use instead of having to manually > > add all of them to make.conf (from a user point of view) > > Why not specify all the CAMERAS you know about as being on by default in > the profile? Users who care enough can override this with an explicit > subset. > If rest of gnome team agrees, I think we could go with, but I still fail to see what is the "technical" problem on allowing CAMERAS="*" to be used :-| signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 20:31:23 +0100 Pacho Ramos wrote: > Wouldn't be any shorter way to build all CAMERAS? We don't want to > default to enabling all, with the new way of handling this, if CAMERAS > is not set or is empty, nothing will be built but, if CAMERAS="*" > shouldn't be used, what should we use instead of having to manually > add all of them to make.conf (from a user point of view) Why not specify all the CAMERAS you know about as being on by default in the profile? Users who care enough can override this with an explicit subset. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 17:09 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:03:41 +0100 > Pacho Ramos wrote: > > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491 > > CAMERAS=* shouldn't be legal. Since the strict IUSE stuff was dropped > from EAPI 4, and since IUSE isn't complete in any EAPI, there's no way > of implementing it correctly. > > If you want to default to enabling a whole load of stuff, but allowing > users to override that, then you do it by listing things explicitly in > profiles. > Wouldn't be any shorter way to build all CAMERAS? We don't want to default to enabling all, with the new way of handling this, if CAMERAS is not set or is empty, nothing will be built but, if CAMERAS="*" shouldn't be used, what should we use instead of having to manually add all of them to make.conf (from a user point of view) Thanks signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
El dom, 13-02-2011 a las 17:09 +, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:03:41 +0100 > Pacho Ramos wrote: > > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491 > > CAMERAS=* shouldn't be legal. Since the strict IUSE stuff was dropped > from EAPI 4, and since IUSE isn't complete in any EAPI, there's no way > of implementing it correctly. > > If you want to default to enabling a whole load of stuff, but allowing > users to override that, then you do it by listing things explicitly in > profiles. > Will CC the rest of the team for thinking about this then signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:03:41 +0100 Pacho Ramos wrote: > Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491 CAMERAS=* shouldn't be legal. Since the strict IUSE stuff was dropped from EAPI 4, and since IUSE isn't complete in any EAPI, there's no way of implementing it correctly. If you want to default to enabling a whole load of stuff, but allowing users to override that, then you do it by listing things explicitly in profiles. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] libgphoto2-2.4.10 news item
Hello Please see attached news item for reviewing as part of the fix for http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346491 Thanks Title: Change on CAMERAS handling in libgphoto2-2.4.10 Author: Pacho Ramos Content-Type: text/plain Posted: 2011-02-13 Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 1.0 Display-If-Installed: http://bugs.gentoo.org/346491), selective cameras build logic has been modified in libgphoto2-2.4.10 to build all when CAMERAS is set to "*", nothing if empty and only the ones specified otherwise. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
