On Wednesday 15 June 2005 20:43, Sven Wegener wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 07:50:13PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Sven Wegener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:56:43PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
I'm in favor of this. Would you mind calling it package.autouse,
package.use.auto or are
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 07:50:13PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Wegener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:56:43PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
I'm in favor of this. Would you mind calling it package.autouse,
package.use.auto or are you set
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:16:18PM +0200, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:40:48 +0200
Sven Wegener [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We just had a short discussion over in #gentoo-portage and the
idea of an use.force file for profiles came up. It allows us to
force some
Sven Wegener wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:16:18PM +0200, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:40:48 +0200
Sven Wegener [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We just had a short discussion over in #gentoo-portage and the
idea of an use.force file for profiles came up. It
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 19:50 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Wegener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:56:43PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
I'm in favor of this. Would you mind calling it package.autouse,
package.use.auto or are you set on
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 04:43, Jason Wever wrote:
One feature that would be more useful (in my honest on Tuesdays
opinion) for us arch folks is the ability to mask use flags on a
per-package basis.
+1 for this, from the Gentoo/FreeBSD team :P
We also have similar problems because sometimes
Mike Frysinger wrote:
and is the EXACT reason we have the 'nocxx' USE flag instead of 'cxx' ... if
we put 'USE=cxx' into profiles' make.defaults, people who have USE=-* will
get a broken gcc
Well, if you really consider setting USE=-* to cause so much harm, then
if you introduce the cxx USE
Sven Wegener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 05:08:09PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
Sven Wegener wrote:
use.force might not be the best name, but it's what we do with it for
most of our users. Being able to -flag in /etc/portage/profile/use.force
is just because /etc/portage/profile gets added
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 19:46, Alec Warner wrote:
It seems like this is an abuse of USE flags, somewhat. I guess programs
could have support for elibc_X or elibc_Y or userland_GNU or
userland_DARWIN/BSD but why a USE flag for these?
Because sometimes we must disable some dependency depending
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:46:22PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
Sven Wegener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 05:08:09PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
Sven Wegener wrote:
use.force might not be the best name, but it's what we do with it for
most of our users. Being able to -flag in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Wegener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:56:43PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
I'm in favor of this. Would you mind calling it package.autouse,
package.use.auto or are you set on .force?
As Mike already wrote those names are too confusing with
Hi all!
We just had a short discussion over in #gentoo-portage and the idea of
an use.force file for profiles came up. It allows us to force some USE
flags to be turned on for a profile. It's not possible to disable this
flag by make.conf, the environment or package.use. But we would not be
Just a thought, but how about making use.mask lock flags instead of
forcing them off? Meaning, if use.mask contains ncurses, and
make.defaults contains USE=ncurses, this would have the same effect as
what ncurses in use.force would do. IMO, this would keep things a bit
simpler. But again, just a
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:47:30PM +0200, Harald van D??k wrote:
Just a thought, but how about making use.mask lock flags instead of
forcing them off? Meaning, if use.mask contains ncurses, and
make.defaults contains USE=ncurses, this would have the same effect as
what ncurses in use.force
Sven Wegener wrote:
We just had a short discussion over in #gentoo-portage and the idea of
an use.force file for profiles came up. It allows us to force some USE
flags to be turned on for a profile. It's not possible to disable this
flag by make.conf, the environment or package.use. But we
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 03:56:49PM -0400, Dan Meltzer wrote:
Seems like use.force might be a bad name. when I first read the
email, and saw use.force, the first thing that came to mind was
gentoo forcing something? and even after reading the email, I
wouldn't expect to be able to override
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 03:40:34PM -0500, Kito wrote:
what about just a use.env?
I find that a little bit misleading. Sounds like use this environment
or so.
Sven
--
Sven Wegener
Gentoo Linux Developer
http://www.gentoo.org/
pgpjQajdyL9gj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Monday 13 June 2005 23:08, Alec Warner wrote:
How is this not just a consequence of USE=-*...that is what this does;
turns off ALL use flags. How is use.force ( or the concept thereof )
not breaking the 'easy' interpretation of USE=-* because now things
aren't -*, they are -* + use.force
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 05:08:09PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
Sven Wegener wrote:
use.force might not be the best name, but it's what we do with it for
most of our users. Being able to -flag in /etc/portage/profile/use.force
is just because /etc/portage/profile gets added to the cascaded
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 16:40 +0200, Sven Wegener wrote:
Hi all!
We just had a short discussion over in #gentoo-portage and the idea of
an use.force file for profiles came up. It allows us to force some USE
flags to be turned on for a profile. It's not possible to disable this
flag by
On Monday 13 June 2005 06:56 pm, Ned Ludd wrote:
Would you mind calling it package.autouse,
package.use.auto or are you set on .force?
the 'auto' and 'use' gets confusing with use.defaults (the so called 'auto-USE
flags')
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Sami Näätänen wrote:
On Monday 13 June 2005 23:54, Sven Wegener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 03:40:34PM -0500, Kito wrote:
what about just a use.env?
I find that a little bit misleading. Sounds like use this
environment or so.
How about use.lock, which would lock the listed use flags
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:40:48 +0200
Sven Wegener [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We just had a short discussion over in #gentoo-portage and the idea of
an use.force file for profiles came up.
One feature that would be more useful (in my honest on Tuesdays
opinion) for us arch folks is the ability to
23 matches
Mail list logo
