-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 09:19 Wed 17 Sep , Zac Medico wrote:
>> I suggest that we unmask the appropriate ARCH flags in
>> profiles/arch/*/use.mask, add ../base to profiles/arch/*/parent, and
>> create profiles/arch/base/use.mask to mask all of
On 09:19 Wed 17 Sep , Zac Medico wrote:
> I suggest that we unmask the appropriate ARCH flags in
> profiles/arch/*/use.mask, add ../base to profiles/arch/*/parent, and
> create profiles/arch/base/use.mask to mask all of the existing ARCH
> flags. This will serve to mask all but the appropriate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Apparently, setting USE=x86 in make.conf on amd64 arch can have funny
> consequences such as [1]. And I can imagine even more subtle and hard to
> detect errors due to this.
>
> I think it's better to prevent this rather than
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think it's better to prevent this rather than waste time with bug
>> reports like that. I asked Zac on IRC whether portage could filter such
>> f
On 15-09-2008 13:20:23 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> > For future EAPIs, ARCH could be a regular USE_EXPANDed flag as you
> > suggest, and package managers could filter any flag in USE which is
> > not listed in IUSE.
>
> While I don't necessarily disagree with you, my impression is that
> most peopl
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:01:46 +0200
Fabian Groffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > While I don't necessarily disagree with you, my impression is that
> > most people tend to think that certain profile-specific flags such
> > as userland_* and kernel_* should be considered as implicit members
> > of I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think it's better to prevent this rather than waste time with bug
>> reports like that. I asked Zac on IRC whether portage could filter such
>> f
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think it's better to prevent this rather than waste time with bug
> reports like that. I asked Zac on IRC whether portage could filter such
> flags. He suggested using use.mask in profiles. Well since ARCH is also
> s
Apparently, setting USE=x86 in make.conf on amd64 arch can have funny
consequences such as [1]. And I can imagine even more subtle and hard to
detect errors due to this.
I think it's better to prevent this rather than waste time with bug
reports like that. I asked Zac on IRC whether portage could
