-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/04/2015 20:29, Joshua Kinard wrote:
Arguably the best 04/01 gag I've seen today. Can we keep this?
It'll make browsing the site on old SGI machines so much easier...
+1, very good job guys it made my day. Thank you !
-BEGIN PGP
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
So I'm basically having trouble with groking the logic you're proposing of
add a new use flag - implied change of useflag - rebuild when
useflags change - but don't rebuild for this useflag change using some
kind of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
# Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org (2 Apr 2015)
# Ancient, dead upstream. File collisions (bug 535700)
# and build failures (bug 277670). Masked for removal in
# 30 days.
dev-perl/Eidetic
app-admin/rackview
- --
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo
On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 16:49:20 -0700
Paul B. Henson hen...@acm.org wrote:
What is the current status/thoughts regarding libressl? Reviewing the
bug and some past threads, it sounds like the initial plan was to make
openssl a virtual and let either classic openssl or libressl fulfull
it? I'm not
The surrounding code is ignorant of USE flags, because it calls
use_reduce(matchall=True), therefore it makes sense for the
dependency.unknown code to ignore USE deps.
X-Gentoo-Bug: 525376
X-Gentoo-Bug-URL: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=525376
---
[PATCH v2] only changes the bug
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 12:32:41 -0400 as excerpted:
Out of curiosity, what is keeping us from having USE flag dependencies
handled dynamically, in the same way that package dependencies are? If
portage can
What is the current status/thoughts regarding libressl? Reviewing the
bug and some past threads, it sounds like the initial plan was to make
openssl a virtual and let either classic openssl or libressl fulfull it?
I'm not sure if things have changed from that viewpoint, but it really
doesn't seem
Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 12:32:41 -0400 as excerpted:
Out of curiosity, what is keeping us from having USE flag dependencies
handled dynamically, in the same way that package dependencies are? If
portage can figure out that I need libxml2 installed even if I don't put
it in
Out of curiosity, what is keeping us from having USE flag dependencies
handled dynamically, in the same way that package dependencies are?
If portage can figure out that I need libxml2 installed even if I
don't put it in /var/lib/portage/world, why can't it figure out that I
need it built with
On 3 April 2015 at 05:32, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is keeping us from having USE flag dependencies
handled dynamically, in the same way that package dependencies are?
If portage can figure out that I need libxml2 installed even if I
don't put it in
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 April 2015 at 05:32, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is keeping us from having USE flag dependencies
handled dynamically, in the same way that package dependencies are?
If portage can
On 3 April 2015 at 06:32, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Why is this necessary? If a USE flag changes, just rebuild the
application.
Isn't the nature of your proposal,( that is, dynamic deps for USE flags )
inherently Use flags change, _dont_ rebuild the application ? :)
It may help
The surrounding code is ignorant of USE flags, because it calls
use_reduce(matchall=True), therefore it makes sense for the
dependency.unknown code to ignore USE deps.
X-Gentoo-Bug: 545294
X-Gentoo-Bug-URL: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=545294
---
bin/repoman | 5 +++--
1 file changed,
13 matches
Mail list logo