On 8/9/06, Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
General problem with use deps; *could* still implement it via
seperating out use specific restrictions and generating the second
logic statement above, but that's bit magic imo.
Is it really magic? Admittedly I know exactly nothing about
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 09:23:34PM +0200, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 00:22:50 -0700,
Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
forcing cxx on via package.mask for gcc
sys-devel/gcc[-cxx]
If i want to build a cxx-free system, am i supposed to add
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 21:41:39 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| The use.force feature is complementary to use.mask. It's exactly
| the same concept, but inverted.
|
| And both files _should_ be implemented via use deps.
Huh? How?
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail: ciaran dot
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:39:46 -0700 Peter Gordon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Zac Medico wrote:
| The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are
| deemed extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the
| user.
|
| If they were so extremely important then they would
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 07:23:31AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 21:41:39 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| The use.force feature is complementary to use.mask. It's exactly
| the same concept, but inverted.
|
| And both files _should_ be implemented via
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 00:22:50 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 07:23:31AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 21:41:39 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| | The use.force feature is complementary to use.mask. It's
| | exactly
Hi Zac,
On 8/8/06, Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi everyone,
I've written a patch [1] that implements support for use.force and package.use.force as originally
described by Sven Wegener [2] over a year ago. Basically, this feature is the
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 08:33:51AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 00:22:50 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 07:23:31AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 21:41:39 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| wrote:
| |
Peter Gordon wrote:
Zac Medico wrote:
The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed
extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user.
If they were so extremely important then they would not be optional,
and hence not even be USE flags at all, no? Or
Pardon the spam, but correcting a misstatement on my part-
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:41:39PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
I know of selinux, and multilib- all that are effectively features,
and exist in the use conditional namespace because they
unfortunately straddle both (same issue with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Harring wrote:
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 08:33:51AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 00:22:50 -0700 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 07:23:31AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Mon, 7 Aug
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:57:55 -0700 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| It does seem appealing to unify the package.use.mask and
| package.use.force functionality into a single file that acts like
| package.mask with use-deps support. If we do it this way, devs won't
| be able to start using
Brian Harring wrote:
Question your method of bootstraping then- note that for gcc it's
nocxx, not cxx.
Meaning, USE=nocxx _disables_ building cxx; this is why default IUSE
is requested, to kill off the 'no' (and it's seperate from my point)-
c++ related failures there would be due to either
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Peter Gordon wrote:
Zac Medico wrote:
The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed
extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user.
If they were so extremely important then they
On 8/8/06, Jason Wever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This could allow for us to get rid of the nofoo use flag nomenclature that
folks have been doing for functionality that is highly suggested to be on
by default.
Which would be fantastic IMO.
-Richard
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Jason Wever wrote:
This could allow for us to get rid of the nofoo use flag nomenclature
that folks have been doing for functionality that is highly suggested to
be on by default.
So would just adding it to make.defaults ... people using -* deserve
what they get, if they don't pay attention.
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 15:56:24 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Jason Wever wrote:
| This could allow for us to get rid of the nofoo use flag
| nomenclature that folks have been doing for functionality that is
| highly suggested to be on by default.
|
| So would just adding it to
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
Uh, no it wouldn't. Part of the reason we have no* flags is to avoid
dep problems. Consider:
USE=!foo? ( some_unavailable_on_x86_package )
versus:
USE=nofoo? ( some_unavailable_on_x86_package )
The nofoo flag can be use masked. The foo flag can't. This patch
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:22:42 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| So the best fix for this is not just retaining two ways to say the
| same thing but actually expanding it? (!foo vs nofoo). That feels
| really wrong.
The Vim / ncurses example I posted earlier is perhaps a more
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:39:46 -0700 Peter Gordon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| If they were so extremely important then they would not be optional,
| and hence not even be USE flags at all, no? Or am I missing something?
You're missing something. Vim used to have an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi everyone,
I've written a patch [1] that implements support for use.force and
package.use.force as originally described by Sven Wegener [2] over a year ago.
Basically, this feature is the exact opposite of use.mask and package.use.mask.
It
Zac Medico wrote:
I've written a patch [1] that implements support for use.force and package.use.force as originally
described by Sven Wegener [2] over a year ago. Basically, this feature is the exact opposite of
use.mask and package.use.mask. It forces USE flags to be enabled. The only way
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I read the portage-dev discussion, and I'm still not seeing how this is
superior to make.defaults.
The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed
extremely important, from being accidentally
Zac Medico wrote:
The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed
extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user.
If they were so extremely important then they would not be optional,
and hence not even be USE flags at all, no? Or am I missing
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 08:31:55PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I read the portage-dev discussion, and I'm still not seeing how this is
superior to make.defaults.
The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are
deemed extremely important, from being
Peter Gordon wrote:
Zac Medico wrote:
The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed
extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user.
If they were so extremely important then they would not be optional,
and hence not even be USE flags at all, no? Or
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:57:39PM -0700, Ryan Tandy wrote:
Peter Gordon wrote:
Zac Medico wrote:
The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed
extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user.
If they were so extremely important then they would
27 matches
Mail list logo
