On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Kent Fredric
> wrote:
> > On 12 February 2016 at 18:56, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> So my USE="-* ..." (without letting portage do autounmasking) would
> >> continue to work just like it does no
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 12 February 2016 at 18:56, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> So my USE="-* ..." (without letting portage do autounmasking) would
>> continue to work just like it does now, correct?
>
> I would hope so.
That would be my proposal.
> A
On 12 February 2016 at 18:56, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> So my USE="-* ..." (without letting portage do autounmasking) would
> continue to work just like it does now, correct?
I would hope so. And obviously, this feature would be potentially
tenous, and might be wise to only
activate
Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 07:55:52 -0500 as excerpted:
> Now, auto-unmask could still propose sticking USE=+foo in your
> package.use if you have USE=-foo in your make.conf, which is already the
> behavior today. If you've made any explicit USE setting in your
> configuration, porta
