On Wednesday 15 June 2005 20:43, Sven Wegener wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 07:50:13PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Sven Wegener wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:56:43PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > >I'm in favor of this. Would you mind calling it package.autouse,
> > > >package.use.
This is something I've thought about too and I agree that this would be
a useful feature. One possible application of this feature is to
simplify how we handle simd extensions on amd64 (this has been discussed
multiple times). Currently we have the USE flags mmx,sse,3dnow masked on
amd64 because th
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 19:50 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Sven Wegener wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:56:43PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> >
> >>I'm in favor of this. Would you mind calling it package.autouse,
> >>package.use.auto or are y
Sven Wegener wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:16:18PM +0200, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:40:48 +0200
Sven Wegener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We just had a short discussion over in #gentoo-portage and the
idea of an use.force file for profiles came up. It
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:16:18PM +0200, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:40:48 +0200
> Sven Wegener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We just had a short discussion over in #gentoo-portage and the
> > idea of an use.force file for profiles came up. It allows us to
> >
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 07:50:13PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Sven Wegener wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:56:43PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> >
> >>I'm in favor of this. Would you mind calling it package.autouse,
> >>package.use.auto o
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:40:48 +0200
Sven Wegener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We just had a short discussion over in #gentoo-portage and the
> idea of an use.force file for profiles came up. It allows us to
> force some USE flags to be turned on for a profile. It's not
> possible to disable this f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Wegener wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:56:43PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
>
>>I'm in favor of this. Would you mind calling it package.autouse,
>>package.use.auto or are you set on .force?
>
>
> As Mike already wrote those names are too confus
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:56:43PM -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> I'm in favor of this. Would you mind calling it package.autouse,
> package.use.auto or are you set on .force?
As Mike already wrote those names are too confusing with the automatic
activated USE flags. We already had some suggestions in
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 01:46:22PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> Sven Wegener wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 05:08:09PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> >
> >>Sven Wegener wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>use.force might not be the best name, but it's what we do with it for
> >>>most of our users. Being able to -
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 19:46, Alec Warner wrote:
> It seems like this is an abuse of USE flags, somewhat. I guess programs
> could have support for elibc_X or elibc_Y or userland_GNU or
> userland_DARWIN/BSD but why a USE flag for these?
Because sometimes we must disable some dependency depending
Sven Wegener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 05:08:09PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
Sven Wegener wrote:
use.force might not be the best name, but it's what we do with it for
most of our users. Being able to -flag in /etc/portage/profile/use.force
is just because /etc/portage/profile gets added
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> and is the EXACT reason we have the 'nocxx' USE flag instead of 'cxx' ... if
> we put 'USE=cxx' into profiles' make.defaults, people who have USE=-* will
> get a broken gcc
Well, if you really consider setting USE=-* to cause so much harm, then
if you introduce the "cxx"
On Tuesday 14 June 2005 04:43, Jason Wever wrote:
> One feature that would be more useful (in my honest on Tuesdays
> opinion) for us arch folks is the ability to mask use flags on a
> per-package basis.
+1 for this, from the Gentoo/FreeBSD team :P
We also have similar problems because sometimes t
Sven Wegener wrote:
> I like to have them separate. USE and use.mask are incremental, that
> means we might lock (via use.mask) a flag that is not set by the profile
> the use.mask is in. This might result in unwanted locking. Considering
> we want to use.mask (as in the old meaning, forcing it to
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:40:48 +0200
Sven Wegener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We just had a short discussion over in #gentoo-portage and the idea of
> an use.force file for profiles came up.
One feature that would be more useful (in my honest on Tuesdays
opinion) for us arch folks is the ability t
Sami Näätänen wrote:
On Monday 13 June 2005 23:54, Sven Wegener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 03:40:34PM -0500, Kito wrote:
what about just a use.env?
I find that a little bit misleading. Sounds like "use this
environment" or so.
How about use.lock, which would lock the listed use flags
On Monday 13 June 2005 06:56 pm, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Would you mind calling it package.autouse,
> package.use.auto or are you set on .force?
the 'auto' and 'use' gets confusing with use.defaults (the so called 'auto-USE
flags')
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 16:40 +0200, Sven Wegener wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> We just had a short discussion over in #gentoo-portage and the idea of
> an use.force file for profiles came up. It allows us to force some USE
> flags to be turned on for a profile. It's not possible to disable this
> flag by ma
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 01:34:05AM +0300, Sami N??t?nen wrote:
> On Monday 13 June 2005 23:54, Sven Wegener wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 03:40:34PM -0500, Kito wrote:
> > > what about just a use.env?
> >
> > I find that a little bit misleading. Sounds like "use this
> > environment" or so.
>
On Monday 13 June 2005 05:27 pm, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Monday 13 June 2005 23:08, Alec Warner wrote:
> > How is this not just a consequence of USE="-*"...that is what this does;
> > turns off ALL use flags. How is use.force ( or the concept thereof )
> > not breaking the 'easy' int
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 05:08:09PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> Sven Wegener wrote:
>
> >use.force might not be the best name, but it's what we do with it for
> >most of our users. Being able to -flag in /etc/portage/profile/use.force
> >is just because /etc/portage/profile gets added to the cascad
On Monday 13 June 2005 23:08, Alec Warner wrote:
> How is this not just a consequence of USE="-*"...that is what this does;
> turns off ALL use flags. How is use.force ( or the concept thereof )
> not breaking the 'easy' interpretation of USE="-*" because now things
> aren't -*, they are -* + use.
On Monday 13 June 2005 23:54, Sven Wegener wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 03:40:34PM -0500, Kito wrote:
> > what about just a use.env?
>
> I find that a little bit misleading. Sounds like "use this
> environment" or so.
How about use.lock, which would lock the listed use flags from normal
usage
Sven Wegener wrote:
use.force might not be the best name, but it's what we do with it for
most of our users. Being able to -flag in /etc/portage/profile/use.force
is just because /etc/portage/profile gets added to the cascaded profile
chain. Everything we add to portage that allows a profile to
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 03:40:34PM -0500, Kito wrote:
> what about just a use.env?
I find that a little bit misleading. Sounds like "use this environment"
or so.
Sven
--
Sven Wegener
Gentoo Linux Developer
http://www.gentoo.org/
pgpjQajdyL9gj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 03:56:49PM -0400, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> Seems like use.force might be a bad name. when I first read the
> email, and saw use.force, the first thing that came to mind was
> "gentoo forcing something?" and even after reading the email, I
> wouldn't expect to be able to over
On Jun 13, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Dan Meltzer wrote:
Seems like use.force might be a bad name. when I first read the
email, and saw use.force, the first thing that came to mind was
"gentoo forcing something?" and even after reading the email, I
wouldn't expect to be able to override something th
Seems like use.force might be a bad name. when I first read the
email, and saw use.force, the first thing that came to mind was
"gentoo forcing something?" and even after reading the email, I
wouldn't expect to be able to override something that was "forced."
I'm not sure what a better name wo
Sven Wegener wrote:
> We just had a short discussion over in #gentoo-portage and the idea of
> an use.force file for profiles came up. It allows us to force some USE
> flags to be turned on for a profile. It's not possible to disable this
> flag by make.conf, the environment or package.use. But we
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:47:30PM +0200, Harald van D??k wrote:
> Just a thought, but how about making use.mask lock flags instead of
> forcing them off? Meaning, if use.mask contains ncurses, and
> make.defaults contains USE="ncurses", this would have the same effect as
> what ncurses in use.forc
Just a thought, but how about making use.mask lock flags instead of
forcing them off? Meaning, if use.mask contains ncurses, and
make.defaults contains USE="ncurses", this would have the same effect as
what ncurses in use.force would do. IMO, this would keep things a bit
simpler. But again, just a
Hi all!
We just had a short discussion over in #gentoo-portage and the idea of
an use.force file for profiles came up. It allows us to force some USE
flags to be turned on for a profile. It's not possible to disable this
flag by make.conf, the environment or package.use. But we would not be
Gentoo
33 matches
Mail list logo
