On 2007/07/10, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for some flags yes ... for others, i dislike that idea for the exact
same reason for the other profile-based suggestions: these defaults
should live in the ebuild, not the profile
I agree that putting per-package defaults in ebuilds is
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:53:08 +0200
Thomas de Grenier de Latour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007/07/10, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for some flags yes ... for others, i dislike that idea for the exact
same reason for the other profile-based suggestions: these defaults
should
On 2007/07/15, Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:53:08 +0200
Thomas de Grenier de Latour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is just that it doesn't work that well with the USE_ORDER
that have been chosen. Even keeping the -* in make.conf case
appart (obviously
On Sunday 15 July 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
My point is just that it doesn't work that well with the USE_ORDER that
have been chosen. Even keeping the -* in make.conf case appart
(obviously my opinion on how it should behave was not widely shared, i
can live with that), there is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
2007-07-15 21:22:07 Mike Frysinger napisał(a):
On Sunday 15 July 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
the day you switch from IUSE=nocxx to IUSE=+cxx, will you
remember that, as a consequence, you have to fix hardened/2.6/minimal
profile?
On Sunday 15 July 2007, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
2007-07-15 21:22:07 Mike Frysinger napisał(a):
On Sunday 15 July 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
the day you switch from IUSE=nocxx to IUSE=+cxx, will you
remember that, as a consequence, you have to fix
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on
the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they
really offer any
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Petteri Räty wrote:
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on
the grounds that it's unnecessary and
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature
on the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do
On 2007/07/10, Thilo Bangert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- we could finally kick all the no* USE flags. USE flags are use
flags - they determine what should be used. not what should not be
used...
Because of the way USE flags stack in Portage (the USE_ORDER variable),
IUSE defaults are not a
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
On 2007/07/10, Thilo Bangert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- we could finally kick all the no* USE flags. USE flags are use
flags - they determine what should be used. not what should not be
used...
Because of the way USE flags stack
On 2007/07/10, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the no* flags were introduced more to address default behavior than
the -* case, so yes we can kick many of the no* USE flags
To address only the default behavior, adding foo to the profile USE
instead of using a nofoo flag would have
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
On 2007/07/10, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the no* flags were introduced more to address default behavior than
the -* case, so yes we can kick many of the no* USE flags
To address only the default behavior, adding foo
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on
the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they
really offer any benefit over
14 matches
Mail list logo
