Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 21 October 2005 05:56 am, Marius Mauch wrote:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This would make it possible for developers to
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 21 October 2005 05:56 am, Marius Mauch wrote:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This would make it possible for developers to
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 10:56:57PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote:
Why single out this one? ones system will not break irreperbly
without a cxx compiler, it'll just cause a another recompile to get it
to work after breakage if the
Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for
Marius Mauch wrote:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
default in a way that would not cruft
Petteri Räty wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
Gentoo being about choice the new package.use should come before
anything user set. I do not see any problem with this if it works in the
same way as package.mask already works. Please, enlighten me.
Because package.use is implemented in a very
On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 17:49 +0300, Marius Mauch wrote:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
Gentoo being about choice the new package.use should come before
anything user set. I do not see any problem with this if it works in the
same way as package.mask already works. Please,
On Friday 21 October 2005 04:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote:
Why single out this one? ones system will not break irreperbly
without a cxx compiler, it'll just cause a another recompile to get it
to work after breakage if the person is
On Friday 21 October 2005 02:44 am, Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 10:56:57PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote:
Why single out this one? ones system will not break irreperbly
without a cxx compiler, it'll just cause a
On Friday 21 October 2005 05:56 am, Marius Mauch wrote:
Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
On Friday 21 October 2005 01:23 pm, Michiel de Bruijne wrote:
On Friday 21 October 2005 04:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote:
Why single out this one? ones system will not break irreperbly
without a cxx compiler, it'll just cause a another
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for every local
use flag.
On Thursday 20 October 2005 23:47, Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
default in a way that
On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
default in a way that
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:03 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This
i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
noFOO is used because FOO is on by default, and noFOO turns it off.
AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the buildplan and to
have sane defaults, certain flags are turned on.
that was a great explanation however
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
noFOO is used because FOO is on by default, and noFOO turns it off.
AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the buildplan and to
have sane defaults, certain
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
noFOO is used because FOO is on by default, and noFOO turns it off.
AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:34 pm, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
noFOO is used because FOO is on by default,
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:03 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a
On 10/20/05, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:34 pm, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx /
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:47 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:03 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use
flags.
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote:
On 10/20/05, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:34 pm, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger
there is nothing hard about USE=-* cxx but while most here want to say
'fuck
the users' (and i'm inclined to agree), i'd rather not field those
bugs/questions/etc...
The average gentoo newbie is not going to know anything about -* in
/etc/make.conf. Mostly it's folks that have been around
On Thursday 20 October 2005 11:09 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
So basically if only 'experienced', yet misguided, folks are using '-*',
then the only bugs to come up from this would be ABKB bugs, leaving them
with egg on their face for messing with '-*' in the first place.
Before anyone asks, ABKB
Before anyone asks, ABKB is help-desk lingo for A**hole
Behind Key Board. I
always preferred that to the id10t error (idiot).
See also: PEBKAC
Thanks,
Chris
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
27 matches
Mail list logo
