On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 1:14 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:05:03AM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > That's at most an argument that USE="-*" should be a theoretically valid
> > configuration. It does not mean that the setting makes sense for anyone.
> >
> > USE="-*" wa
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:05:03AM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> That's at most an argument that USE="-*" should be a theoretically valid
> configuration. It does not mean that the setting makes sense for anyone.
>
> USE="-*" was maybe a reasonable idea before we had use defaults.
>
> Now,
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 17, 2014, at 7:03 PM, hasufell wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/18/2014 12:47 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>> Am Dienstag, 18. November 2014, 00:38:36 schrieb hasufell:
>>>
>>> We just don't want to answer a thousand
>>> questions when t
В письме от Вт, 18 ноября 2014 03:28:08 пользователь Duncan написал:
> Tho I actually appreciate the "you get to keep the pieces" aspect as
> Unlike many distros, gentoo actually respects the user and their
> right to decide enough to give them the /power/ to break the system, if
> they "drink and
Andreas K. Huettel posted on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 00:05:03 +0100 as excerpted:
> Message to users- if you want a minimum set of useflags, start from the
> main default profile of your arch. That's what it is for. Everything
> else, and you sure get to keep the pieces.
But for no-multilib, there's st
> On Nov 17, 2014, at 7:03 PM, hasufell wrote:
>
>> On 11/18/2014 12:47 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> Am Dienstag, 18. November 2014, 00:38:36 schrieb hasufell:
>>
>> We just don't want to answer a thousand
>> questions when things break for others. That is the whole point of sane
>> defa
On 11/18/2014 12:47 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 18. November 2014, 00:38:36 schrieb hasufell:
>
> We just don't want to answer a thousand
> questions when things break for others. That is the whole point of sane
> defaults.
>
Except that sane defaults are not a substitute for
Am Dienstag, 18. November 2014, 00:38:36 schrieb hasufell:
> I personally don't have a strong opinion on any of those solutions. But
> I'm quite tired of people telling me how to use gentoo and what to
> expect about correctness of dependencies.
Earth to hasufell. Please stop confusing people. We
On 11/18/2014 12:05 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> USE="-*" was maybe a reasonable idea before we had use defaults.
>
> Now, by setting USE="-*", you deviate from upstream defaults at random places
> and pointlessly mess up the dependency calculations of python / ruby /
> multilib / ... packag
Am Montag, 17. November 2014, 22:36:10 schrieb hasufell:
> >
> > If someone using Gentoo uses USE="-* foo bar ..." they get to keep the
> > pieces.
> >
> > William
>
> Using USE="-*" reveals so many random assumptions and untested ebuild
> configurations that we should definitely rethink that se
On 11/17/2014 09:40 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:42:57PM +0100, Alexander Hof wrote:
>> Mike Gilbert wrote:
There are people that don't want c++ and gcc:4.7 can still bootstrap
without.
>>>
>>> Those people "know what they are doing" and could un-force the us
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:42:57PM +0100, Alexander Hof wrote:
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >> There are people that don't want c++ and gcc:4.7 can still bootstrap
> >> without.
> >>
> >
> > Those people "know what they are doing" and could un-force the use
> > flag. That would prevent people from acci
> On Nov 15, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>>> On 13/11/14 09:05 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 11/13/2014 05:30 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
Suggested po
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 13/11/14 09:05 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> On 11/13/2014 05:30 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>>
>>> Suggested policy to get the ball rolling:
>>>
>>> In general, a package must exp
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 14/11/14 15:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> And I do apologize for piling on a bit - trying to get rid of @system
>> has been one of my soap box issues for a while. It really seems like
>> an ugly, if practical, solution.
>
> I think the
On 14/11/14 15:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Michael Palimaka
> wrote:
>> On 14/11/14 11:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, the idea would be to maintain the virtual INSTEAD of @system, or
>>> have @system just pull in the virtual and make some arch-specific
>>> ad
Mike Gilbert posted on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:55:10 -0500 as excerpted:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Alexander Hof
> wrote:
>> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Michael Palimaka
>>> wrote:
On 14/11/14 01:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> Isn't it possible to disab
hasufell wrote:
>> Are we talking about forcing +cxx globally or for gcc (+toolchain)?
>>
>> Has this been a major problem in the past? Shouldn't people who set
>> USE="-*" also "know what they are doing"?
>>
>
> * don't ever assume that the user knows what he is doing
> * still allow him to brea
On 11/14/2014 11:42 PM, Alexander Hof wrote:
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> There are people that don't want c++ and gcc:4.7 can still bootstrap
>>> without.
>>>
>>
>> Those people "know what they are doing" and could un-force the use
>> flag. That would prevent people from accidentally disabling it via
Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> There are people that don't want c++ and gcc:4.7 can still bootstrap
>> without.
>>
>
> Those people "know what they are doing" and could un-force the use
> flag. That would prevent people from accidentally disabling it via
> USE="-*".
Are we talking about forcing +cxx glob
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Alexander Hof wrote:
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Michael Palimaka
>> wrote:
>>> On 14/11/14 01:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE="-cxx"?
>>>
>>> It is, but I think if that's disabled yo
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:03:27 -0800 Zac Medico wrote:
[...]
> >> Sorry Zac, I posted my reply before I read this. This is essentially
> >> the point I was making. However, I think this will be cumbersome. With
> >> the current way we do things, its easy to delete packages from @system
> >> by
On 11/14/2014 06:14 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 07:20:50 -0500 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> On 11/13/14 23:15, Zac Medico wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2014 08:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Michael Palimaka
wrote:
> On 14/11/14 11:06
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:10:43 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 11/13/2014 01:13 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Michael Palimaka
> > wrote:
> >> On 14/11/14 01:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> >>> Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE="-cxx"?
> >>
> >> It is,
Hi,
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 07:20:50 -0500 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 11/13/14 23:15, Zac Medico wrote:
> > On 11/13/2014 08:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Michael Palimaka
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 14/11/14 11:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Well, the idea would be to
On 11/13/2014 01:13 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Michael Palimaka
> wrote:
>> On 14/11/14 01:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>> Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE="-cxx"?
>>
>> It is, but I think if that's disabled you're on your own. :-)
>
> Perhaps we s
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>
> Sorry Zac, I posted my reply before I read this. This is essentially the
> point I was making. However, I think this will be cumbersome. With the
> current way we do things, its easy to delete packages from @system by just
> doing '-
On 11/13/14 23:15, Zac Medico wrote:
On 11/13/2014 08:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 14/11/14 11:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
Well, the idea would be to maintain the virtual INSTEAD of @system, or
have @system just pull in the virtual and mak
On 11/13/14 21:38, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 14/11/14 11:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Michael Palimaka
wrote:
Ditching implicit dependencies is an interesting idea but not practical.
Nobody wants to the laundry list, and there's little benefit in
maintaining a vir
On 11/13/2014 08:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Michael Palimaka
> wrote:
>> On 14/11/14 11:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, the idea would be to maintain the virtual INSTEAD of @system, or
>>> have @system just pull in the virtual and make some arch-specific
>
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 14/11/14 11:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> Well, the idea would be to maintain the virtual INSTEAD of @system, or
>> have @system just pull in the virtual and make some arch-specific
>> additions.
>
> Will that work? Some profiles remove
On 14/11/14 11:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Michael Palimaka
> wrote:
>>
>> Ditching implicit dependencies is an interesting idea but not practical.
>> Nobody wants to the laundry list, and there's little benefit in
>> maintaining a virtual/system clone of @system.
>
On 14/11/14 03:57, hasufell wrote:
> On 11/13/2014 04:27 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
* C++ compiler and runtime
>>>
>>> Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE="-cxx"?
>>
>> It is, but I think if that's disabled you're on your own. :-)
>>
>
> I keep hearing this sentence, but it stil
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Michael Palimaka
wrote:
>
> Ditching implicit dependencies is an interesting idea but not practical.
> Nobody wants to the laundry list, and there's little benefit in
> maintaining a virtual/system clone of @system.
>
Well, the idea would be to maintain the virtu
Dnia 2014-11-13, o godz. 13:13:01
Mike Gilbert napisał(a):
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Michael Palimaka
> wrote:
> > On 14/11/14 01:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> >> Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE="-cxx"?
> >
> > It is, but I think if that's disabled you're on your own.
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Michael Palimaka
> wrote:
>> On 14/11/14 01:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>> Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE="-cxx"?
>>
>> It is, but I think if that's disabled you're on your own. :-)
>
> Perhaps we should add a package.use.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Michael Palimaka
wrote:
> On 14/11/14 01:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE="-cxx"?
>
> It is, but I think if that's disabled you're on your own. :-)
Perhaps we should add a package.use.force entry for this. Is there a
On 11/13/2014 04:27 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>> * C++ compiler and runtime
>>
>> Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE="-cxx"?
>
> It is, but I think if that's disabled you're on your own. :-)
>
I keep hearing this sentence, but it still doesn't make much sense to
me. Invalid conf
On 14/11/14 01:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 11/13/2014 05:30 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>
>> Suggested policy to get the ball rolling:
>>
>> In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it directly uses.
>> However, to avoid ebuild complexity and developer burden there are some
>> e
On 14/11/14 01:36, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>
>> Suggested policy to get the ball rolling:
>
>> In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it directly
>> uses. However, to avoid ebuild complexity and developer burden there
>> are some e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/11/14 10:17 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 13/11/14 09:05 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> On 11/13/2014 05:30 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>>
>>> Suggested policy to get the ball rolling:
>>>
>>> In general, a package must explicitly depend
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/11/14 09:05 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 11/13/2014 05:30 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>
>> Suggested policy to get the ball rolling:
>>
>> In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it
>> directly uses. However, to avoid ebui
On 14/11/14 01:17, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Michael Palimaka
> wrote:
>>
>> In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it directly uses.
>> However, to avoid ebuild complexity and developer burden there are some
>> exceptions. Packages that appear in the
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> Suggested policy to get the ball rolling:
> In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it directly
> uses. However, to avoid ebuild complexity and developer burden there
> are some exceptions. Packages that appear in the base system
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>
> In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it directly uses.
> However, to avoid ebuild complexity and developer burden there are some
> exceptions. Packages that appear in the base system set may be omitted
> from an ebuild'
On 11/13/2014 05:30 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>
> Suggested policy to get the ball rolling:
>
> In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it directly uses.
> However, to avoid ebuild complexity and developer burden there are some
> exceptions. Packages that appear in the base syste
On 05/11/14 12:16, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> When I was taking my ebuild quizzes, I asked for someone to clarify the
> implicit system dependency that we have enshrined in the devmanual:
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=485356
>
> There is... some agreement, but also special cases an
47 matches
Mail list logo
