Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-07 Thread Sam Jorna
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 09:11:20PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Sam Jorna wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:00:51PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > > >> > OK,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Sam Jorna wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:00:51PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> > OK, can we all decide out of this thread, that if any package is >> > enabling

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-07 Thread Sam Jorna
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:00:51PM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > > On 07/02/17 08:27 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> > >> The thread wasn't about discouraging IUSE defaults, rather to decide > >> when they are

[gentoo-dev] [warning] the bug queue has 97 bugs

2017-02-07 Thread Alex Alexander
Our bug queue has 97 bugs! If you have some spare time, please help assign/sort a few bugs. To view the bug queue, click here: http://bit.ly/m8PQS5 Thanks!

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

2017-02-07 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.
On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 9:23:22 AM EST William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 01:22:22AM +0100, Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > > I'd recommend to jump a bandwagon and switch to CMake. > > > > Yes, it's ugly in certain areas, has its quirks but whoever switches to it > > ones, never goes

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-07 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
On 07/02/17 12:00 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 07/02/17 08:27 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>> >>> The thread wasn't about discouraging IUSE defaults, rather to decide >>> when they are appropriate. You cannot omit

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-07 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 07/02/17 08:27 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> >> The thread wasn't about discouraging IUSE defaults, rather to decide >> when they are appropriate. You cannot omit "pkginternal" from USE_ORDER, >> because you will

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-07 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 07/02/17 08:27 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> >> The thread wasn't about discouraging IUSE defaults, rather to >> decide when they are appropriate. You cannot omit "pkginternal" >> from USE_ORDER, because you will break all of the packages

Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: moving OpenRC to a meson-based build

2017-02-07 Thread William Hubbs
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 01:22:22AM +0100, Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > I'd recommend to jump a bandwagon and switch to CMake. > > Yes, it's ugly in certain areas, has its quirks but whoever switches to it > ones, never goes back, and not because of technical debt being too big. > > Also because I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-07 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
On 07/02/17 08:27 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > The thread wasn't about discouraging IUSE defaults, rather to decide > when they are appropriate. You cannot omit "pkginternal" from USE_ORDER, > because you will break all of the packages whose defaults are either > critical to the package, or

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-07 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On 02/07/2017 02:52 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > I see no point in discouraging IUSE defaults, given that they are > purely advisory for the package manager: > > "[...] any use flag name in IUSE may be prefixed by at most one of a > plus or a minus sign. If such a prefix is present, the package

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-07 Thread Michał Górny
W dniu 07.02.2017, wto o godzinie 21∶20 +1300, użytkownik Kent Fredric napisał: > On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 08:52:06 +0100 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > I see no point in discouraging IUSE defaults, given that they are > > purely advisory for the package manager: > > > > "[...] any

Re: [gentoo-dev] Guidelines for IUSE defaults

2017-02-07 Thread Kent Fredric
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 08:52:06 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > I see no point in discouraging IUSE defaults, given that they are > purely advisory for the package manager: > > "[...] any use flag name in IUSE may be prefixed by at most one of a > plus or a minus sign. If such a