Hi folks,
I've seen an ugly problem w/ gtk1 + gtk2. These two different
packages are treated as one. Obviously very bad behaviour.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143063
IMHO this is a major problem, and we should fix it soon.
cu
--
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 09:43:00 +0200 Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
| I've seen an ugly problem w/ gtk1 + gtk2. These two different
| packages are treated as one. Obviously very bad behaviour.
Uh, they're in different slots, so no, they're not treated as one.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail
Zac Medico wrote:
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
agaffney suggested this in the first place, and every time I think about
it, it seems like a better idea. If we set VIDEO_CARDS and INPUT_DEVICES
in the arch profiles, we get the arch-specific defaults we need without
the really hugely ugly
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:01:12AM +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
Zac Medico wrote:
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
agaffney suggested this in the first place, and every time I think about
it, it seems like a better idea. If we set VIDEO_CARDS and INPUT_DEVICES
in the arch profiles, we get the
On 2006.08.07 00:20, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
Hi all,
It is with geat pleasure that I can knight Steve (aka
beandog) a 'real dev'. Under Mike (KingTacos) hawkeyed glance I have
recruited my first recruitee (hmm, it's not really called recruitee
is it?) and am embarking upon a
You've already been told it's a non-issue, but here's why:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/slotting/index.html
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
* Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
You've already been told it's a non-issue, but here's why:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/slotting/index.html
Oh hell, this can't be serious !
It mixes up diffent things to one and just introduces new
problems instead of solving
* Chris White [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Hi,
That said I'm looking around for people that can help with
confirmations/patches/etc. for app-pda packages.
I'm going to take a deeper look at the synce stuff in a few days,
so I'll probably have to fix a lot of things there anyways.
You may add
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
It mixes up diffent things to one and just introduces new
problems instead of solving anything. I could live with that,
if it's for supporting different ABIs, but it obviously isn't.
No?
gtk1 and gtk2 are completely different packages, they're not
compatible. So
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Oh hell, this can't be serious !
It is.
It mixes up diffent things to one and just introduces new
problems instead of solving anything. I could live with that,
if it's for supporting different ABIs, but it obviously isn't.
What sort of problems? An example backing up
big_snip /
My problem still seems unsolved (or did I miss something) ?
Lets say, if I've, installed foo-1.1, and it gets masked due
some bug(s), but 1.0 isn't, I want to get informed with an big
fat warning, *before* anything actually done, ie.
[...]
# WARNING: installed package foo-1.1 has
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
I'm going to take a deeper look at the synce stuff in a few days,
so I'll probably have to fix a lot of things there anyways.
You may add me to your maillist(s) and CC me to bugs at will.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email has a 'Users to watch:' input
field.
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 15:01 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Lets say, if I've, installed foo-1.1, and it gets masked due
some bug(s), but 1.0 isn't, I want to get informed with an big
fat warning, *before* anything actually done, ie.
[...]
# WARNING: installed package foo-1.1 has been masked
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
big_snip /
My problem still seems unsolved (or did I miss something) ?
Lets say, if I've, installed foo-1.1, and it gets masked due
some bug(s), but 1.0 isn't, I want to get informed with an big
fat warning, *before* anything actually done, ie.
[...]
# WARNING:
* Noack, Sebastian [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
snip
Hey, come on. We're not Debian! Unnecessary and senseless
splitting of packages is against the philosophy of Gentoo.
I don't think we are not xyz is a good argumentation in
technical discussions.
At this point, Debian is actually doing
Hi folks,
I like to try bleeding edge beta versions. But I hate that if I will
install for example the new firefox 2 beta via portage, it will unmerge
the current stable version. I would prefer to have a stable version for
daily work and the beta version for testing purposes at the same time on
On Monday 07 August 2006 15:16, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
snip
For example: mplayer
It has it's gui-less player and an gtk-based frontend in one package.
We should split this into two packages: mplayer and gmplayer.
The chances to get this done
* Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
snip
Additionally... once you start down that path, the changes to
pkgs become less then minor. Some are simple, some ain't.
If it's required to get them clean, then it shall be done.
(I'm actually doing thins @ oss-qm)
snip
Personally, I hate
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
big_snip /
My problem still seems unsolved (or did I miss something) ?
Lets say, if I've, installed foo-1.1, and it gets masked due
some bug(s), but 1.0 isn't, I want to get informed with an big
fat warning, *before* anything actually done, ie.
[...]
# WARNING:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:29:53 +0200 Noack, Sebastian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I like to try bleeding edge beta versions. But I hate that if I will
| install for example the new firefox 2 beta via portage, it will
| unmerge the current stable version. I would prefer to have a stable
| version for
That's just because Debian has to do the upstream's work.
So if you are so in love with how Debian does everything, why don't you
just use Debian instead of Gentoo and stop wasting our time with your
silly rants on how we should do everything just like them.
-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
* Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
snip
Well, I don't consider reducing complexity frivolous ;-o
Which reduction for which complexity? Do you want to bring everyone's
systems to a grinding halt, just because you can't understand the
complexity of useflags.
I just want to keep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Noack, Sebastian wrote:
Hi folks,
I like to try bleeding edge beta versions. But I hate that if I will
install for example the new firefox 2 beta via portage, it will unmerge
the current stable version. I would prefer to have a stable version
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 09:31 -0500, Mike Doty wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Noack, Sebastian wrote:
Hi folks,
I like to try bleeding edge beta versions. But I hate that if I will
install for example the new firefox 2 beta via portage, it will unmerge
the
I like to try bleeding edge beta versions. But I hate that if I will
install for example the new firefox 2 beta via portage, it will
unmerge
the current stable version. I would prefer to have a stable version
for
daily work and the beta version for testing purposes at the same
time on
my
Hi folks,
I like to try bleeding edge beta versions. But I hate that if I
will
install for example the new firefox 2 beta via portage, it will
unmerge
the current stable version. I would prefer to have a stable
version
for
daily work and the beta version for testing purposes at
Edward Catmur wrote:
Is it possible to get Portage (or ebuild) to build a package for
installation into /opt? If not, how much work would that be?
What would be great would be to have emerge --optinstall package, that
installs the package into /opt/$PV and doesn't create a vdb entry...
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
snip
Well, I don't consider reducing complexity frivolous ;-o
Which reduction for which complexity? Do you want to bring everyone's
systems to a grinding halt, just because you can't understand the
complexity of
Well, I don't consider reducing complexity frivolous ;-o
Which reduction for which complexity? Do you want to bring
everyone's
systems to a grinding halt, just because you can't understand the
complexity of useflags.
I just want to keep things simple. We're talking about introducing
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:26:44 +0200
Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The bad thing is that those things don't get neither into the upstrem
nor other distros.
^--- This should be a warning flag ---^
If other distros aren't doing it and upstream isn't doing it, then it
may no be that
Noack, Sebastian wrote:
Is a need to have dozens of lines in your /etc/portage/package.use a
simple approach? Maybe it is, if for you, simplicity means only less
number of lines of code in the core of the application. But wasn't you
the one who told me that quantity isn't the same like
Hi,
I just stumbled over an article from SearchSecurity.com which was linked to
in a heise newsticker posting that tries to analyze how fast distributions
react to security vulnerabilities:
http://tinyurl.com/lplfb
Quick chart:
Rank DistroPoints/100
Wolfram Schlich wrote:
Any comments or thoughts about this?
Read the comments here: http://lwn.net/Articles/193107/
In the future, please don't double-post to subscriber-only lists, very
few people can reply to both.
Thanks,
Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Wolfram Schlich wrote:
Any comments or thoughts about this?
Does the security team currently face serious problems that need to be
solved, be it inside or outside the security team?
As far as I know large chunks of time get lost when waiting for maintainers and
arch teams to do their work. I
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 09:52 -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
Edward Catmur wrote:
Is it possible to get Portage (or ebuild) to build a package for
installation into /opt? If not, how much work would that be?
What would be great would be to have emerge --optinstall package, that
installs
Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 07 Aug 2006
16:18:21 +0200:
Grandma wants to click, okay, so she should use graphical applications.
She's not interested what sits behind, she just wants to have a buch of
applications. And she also doesn't
As far as I'm aware the problem isn't the security team, but the reasons are:
1. slow/understaffed arch teams - and I suppose this is the biggest problem,
as we need all security-wise supported¹ architectures stable, before a GLSA
can be send out.
2. the amount of unmaintained stuff in the
Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 07 Aug 2006
15:01:57 +0200:
My problem still seems unsolved (or did I miss something) ?
You missed something.
Lets say, if I've, installed foo-1.1, and it gets masked due some bug(s),
but 1.0 isn't, I want
Duncan wrote:
That's precisely what emerge --pretend --verbose covers. Or, if you want
the display with a question to continue or not, use --ask instead of
--verbose.
I'm pretty sure you mean to use --ask instead of --pretend, not --verbose.
--
Joshua Nichols
Gentoo/Java - Project Lead
On Sunday 06 August 2006 00:26, Mike Frysinger wrote:
and i'm on the opposite side where implicit RDEPEND should be clean:
Why? I for one consider explicit dependencies much more clean. If Portage at
some point should distinct between dependencies defined in ebuilds and
eclasses, we'd need a
Wolfram Schlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted
below, on Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:42:21 +0200:
I just stumbled over an article from SearchSecurity.com which was linked
to in a heise newsticker posting that tries to analyze how fast
distributions react to security
* Thomas Cort [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:26:44 +0200
Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The bad thing is that those things don't get neither into the upstrem
nor other distros.
^--- This should be a warning flag ---^
If other distros aren't doing it
* Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
snip
I would call you a horrible administrator since this:
I run an update w/o knowing that it downgrades
should NEVER happen.
emerge -pv foo
[ebuild UD] cat/foo-currentversion [downgraded-version] stuff
Great. I have to explicitly compare the
* Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
snip
# WARNING: installed package foo-1.1 has been masked and would # be
downgraded:
# masking comment ...
[...]
That's precisely what emerge --pretend --verbose covers. Or, if you want
the display with a question to continue or not, use --ask
* Noack, Sebastian [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
snip
I like to try bleeding edge beta versions. But I hate that if I will
install for example the new firefox 2 beta via portage, it will unmerge
the current stable version. I would prefer to have a stable version for
daily work and the beta
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Why can't emerge just print out an fat warning if its going to
downgrade ? Would save people from much, much trouble.
# emerge -pv =coreutils-5.2.1-r7
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild UD]
* Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Oh hell, this can't be serious !
It is.
It mixes up diffent things to one and just introduces new
problems instead of solving anything. I could live with that,
if it's for supporting different ABIs, but it obviously
* Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
It mixes up diffent things to one and just introduces new
problems instead of solving anything. I could live with that,
if it's for supporting different ABIs, but it obviously isn't.
No?
In this case not - it's
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
What sort of problems? An example backing up your claims would be very nice.
+ Additional complexity (slotting) is necessary, so additional
changes of bugs.
Oh please, this is so lame. That feature has been in existance for long enough
to be proven useful and not
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
BTW: how do you enforce an minimum gtk1 version ?
You know, a lot of these questions of yours could be answered clearly if
you look at the ebuild documentation and developer manuals.
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ is a good start. :)
Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
media-gfx/xzgv is masked pending removal due to a dead upstream. There
are plenty of other image viewers out there which are maintained.
-smithj
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Luca Barbato [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
It mixes up diffent things to one and just introduces new
problems instead of solving anything. I could live with that,
if it's for supporting different ABIs, but it obviously isn't.
No?
In this case
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 05:31:27PM +0900, Chris White wrote:
The PDA herd is pretty slim right now and the only active members are
really liquidx and myself. That said I'm looking around for people
that can help with confirmations/patches/etc. for app-pda packages.
Plans are to hopefully pull
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:26:44 +0200
Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Noack, Sebastian [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
snip
Hey, come on. We're not Debian! Unnecessary and senseless
splitting of packages is against the philosophy of Gentoo.
I don't think we are not xyz is a good
* Jean-Francois Gagnon Laporte [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
On 8/7/06, Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Simon Stelling [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
You've already been told it's a non-issue, but here's why:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/slotting/index.html
Oh hell,
* Steve Dibb [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
snip
[ebuild UD] sys-apps/coreutils-5.2.1-r7 [5.94-r1] USE=-acl -build
-nls -static 0 kB
Total size of downloads: 0 kB
See the little D?
It's not big, it's not fat, but it's warning you. :)
Not actually an eye-catching.
To be fair, do
* Noack, Sebastian [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
snip
Is a need to have dozens of lines in your /etc/portage/package.use
a simple approach? Maybe it is, if for you, simplicity means only
less number of lines of code in the core of the application.
But wasn't you the one who told me that
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Yes, I'll file a bug on the whole gtk issue and all packages
using this ugly hacks.
You can save your time. Really. And vastly more important, save our
bug-wrangler's time. You've already filed a bug. It was closed as INVALID, and
except for you nobody in this thread
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
The assumption is wrong, gtk1 and gtk2 are incompatible versions
of one library. They are completely different libraries, where
one originally had been forked off the other one. Now they look
similar, but are in no ways equal.
you don't know gtk. stop trolling.
Hi there,
On Monday 07 August 2006 13:42, Wolfram Schlich wrote:
Any comments or thoughts about this?
Can we become better?
Are we maybe better than the author pretends?
Does the security team currently face serious problems that need to be
solved, be it inside or outside the security team?
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
Not actually an eye-catching.
Ummm, D, as opposed to U... Yeah, that catches my eye. I am weird like
that though.
To be fair, do *you* actually look through *all* the emerge
output if there's any D flag, without the risk of overlooking
it someday ?
Yes, honestly,
* Patrick McLean [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
snip
The APIs are incompatible.
They are still the both evolutions of the same development tree, they
are the same package, just different versions.
Let's take an example the automobile world:
The Mitsubishi Galant is an sucessor of the
On 8/7/06, Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be fair, do *you* actually look through *all* the emerge
output if there's any D flag, without the risk of overlooking
it someday ?
Um, sorry, but users *should* be looking at the output of --pretend to
get an idea of what portage wants to
It is my pleasure to introduce to you... the artist formerly known as...
beu! Many will know Elfyn from his previous stint as a Gentoo developer.
This time around, we have a understanding.. the sort that involves
sleeping with fish and finding horseheads in your bed. Capish? He won't
magically
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
If we changed the name of a package every time there was an API break,
we would literally have thousands of packages in the tree that essentially
do the same thing, just with different API's.
Yes, but it would be much more cleaner. Everyone would see what
actually
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
According to this philosophy, we should change the name of the package
every time net-misc/neon comes out with a new version, since it breaks
API on every version.
If APIs break with every version (on non-alpha stuff), it's principle
design failure. I tend to avoid
big_snip
Okay, you simply don't want to talk or even think about this issue.
I won't waste more of my lifetime with it, and I won't let you
do more acts of demotiviation. If you wouldn't have descrited my
intensions this way and these personal attacks didn't happen,
I would have set up my own
On 8/7/06, Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The assumption is wrong, gtk1 and gtk2 are incompatible versions
of one library. They are completely different libraries, where
one originally had been forked off the other one. Now they look
similar, but are in no ways equal.
Have you
* Steev Klimaszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
snip
Obviously, not everyone wants to be vigilant - but
if you aren't - then you don't get to whine about it when it breaks.
well actually I guess you do...
So, you don't have any intention to help people who don't have
such an eagle-eye
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
To be fair, do *you* actually look through *all* the emerge
output if there's any D flag, without the risk of overlooking
it someday ?
Yes.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
On Monday 07 August 2006 22:09, Marius Mauch wrote:
*sigh*, if you want to use a source based Debian (as the combination of
all your posts seems to indicate) then do so, stop trying to convert
Gentoo into that. Or create your own private fork.
I start to get *really* annoyed by your overall
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 23:01:45 +0200
Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Obviously, not everyone wants to be vigilant - but
if you aren't - then you don't get to whine about it when it breaks.
well actually I guess you do...
So, you don't have any intention to help people who don't
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Steve Dibb [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
See the little D?
It's not big, it's not fat, but it's warning you. :)
Not actually an eye-catching.
To be fair, do *you* actually look through *all* the emerge
output if there's any D flag, without the risk of overlooking
On Monday 07 August 2006 16:18, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
I just want to keep things simple. We're talking about introducing
new (additional) logic. This has to be maintained. And it doesn't
actually *solve* the problem which is this discussion was started.
Removing the stuff from the ebuild and
On Mon, Aug 7, 2006 at 22:18:35 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
snip
I would call you a horrible administrator since this:
I run an update w/o knowing that it downgrades
should NEVER happen.
emerge -pv foo
[ebuild UD]
On Monday 07 August 2006 13:36, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
On Sunday 06 August 2006 00:26, Mike Frysinger wrote:
and i'm on the opposite side where implicit RDEPEND should be clean:
Why? I for one consider explicit dependencies much more clean.
i prefer to make the common behavior the default ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi everyone,
I've written a patch [1] that implements support for use.force and
package.use.force as originally described by Sven Wegener [2] over a year ago.
Basically, this feature is the exact opposite of use.mask and package.use.mask.
It
On 07/08/06, Christel Dahlskjaer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is my pleasure to introduce to you... the artist formerly known as...
beu! Many will know Elfyn from his previous stint as a Gentoo developer.
This time around, we have a understanding.. the sort that involves
sleeping with fish and
Enrico,
Yes, but package maintainers have to be much more carefully about
these dependencies, as it would be necessary if we actually would
treat them as different packages.
Have you asked the gentoo package maintainers how they feel on this
subject, or are you supposing/guessing?
--
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 15:48 +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
...
Let's take a better example: nmap
This package actually contains two completely different things:
the portscanner tool and some gtk-based frontend. In fact the gtk
useflag switches the
On Monday 07 August 2006 21:44, W.Kenworthy wrote:
My personal opinion is that whilst things like modular X are good for
developers, they are not so good for users - particularly gentoo users.
we provide meta packages (X/kde/gnome/etc...) for the split packages so users
can just emerge 1
W.Kenworthy wrote:
My personal opinion is that whilst things like modular X are good for
developers, they are not so good for users - particularly gentoo users.
Definitely not true. The X.Org 7.1 release shared the vast majority of
packages with 7.0, so there were very few upgrades -- just a
Zac Medico wrote:
I've written a patch [1] that implements support for use.force and package.use.force as originally
described by Sven Wegener [2] over a year ago. Basically, this feature is the exact opposite of
use.mask and package.use.mask. It forces USE flags to be enabled. The only way
Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
I of course am thrilled, not only did we (re-)gain another UK based dev,
but a UK based dev with a great taste in music, a sick and twisted mind
and the ability to put up with me singing. Welcome back, Elfyn!
Awesome. Welcome aboard, Elfyn!
--
Peter Gordon
someone remind me why our emul packages install in some obscure directory tree
rooted in /emul
if we moved these things to the standard lib32 dirs, it would certainly ease
the pain of people doing multilib building
-mike
pgp0iUxwqWpVd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I read the portage-dev discussion, and I'm still not seeing how this is
superior to make.defaults.
The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed
extremely important, from being accidentally
why god why do we have this file ? it pollutes ld.so.conf and makes me so
angry
-mike
pgpOFUoFK4Ze9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Zac Medico wrote:
The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed
extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user.
If they were so extremely important then they would not be optional,
and hence not even be USE flags at all, no? Or am I missing
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 08:31:55PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
I read the portage-dev discussion, and I'm still not seeing how this is
superior to make.defaults.
The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are
deemed extremely important, from being
Peter Gordon wrote:
Zac Medico wrote:
The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed
extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user.
If they were so extremely important then they would not be optional,
and hence not even be USE flags at all, no? Or
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:57:39PM -0700, Ryan Tandy wrote:
Peter Gordon wrote:
Zac Medico wrote:
The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed
extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user.
If they were so extremely important then they would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Harring wrote:
You're asking on the wrong ml. Profile monkeying really should
include a run through of -dev, *especially* something like that that's
going to be a pita to turn off when folks start abusing it...
I'm just running it by the
Brian Harring wrote:
You're asking on the wrong ml. Profile monkeying really should
include a run through of -dev, *especially* something like that that's
going to be a pita to turn off when folks start abusing it...
Make sure you explicitly state that one *must not* force a flag simply
On Sun, 2006-08-06 at 22:08 +0100, Paul Bredbury wrote:
Other cases would want it to return TRUE.
Got an example of those? I expect to be able to show that they're
incorrect.
Sorry to keep this alive.
Example: subversion.eclass has
if built_with_use dev-util/subversion nowebdav;
if built_with_use dev-util/subversion nowebdav; then
So Portage needs an end to USE flags whose first 2 characters are 'no'
day, in order to keep its complexity bearable. Which is already known,
in the dev manual (whose URL I'm too lazy to look up right now).
The big problem with the Russell
Zac Medico wrote:
Users can unforce them via /etc/portage/profile/{use.force,package.use.force}
in the usual -flag way.
Why new files? Why isn't this just pushed into the use stacking order
over-ridable by the user (default USE flags, and not forcing)?
Then they can over-ride it in
Edward Catmur wrote:
If the package is installed through package.provided, then I agree with
the *current* Portage behaviour of assuming that all USE flags are on.
Ya can't blame me for that. It's currently the only sensible choice.
(Funnily enough, no-one has suggested dying as an option for
Checking for a package that isn't either a direct or indirect dependency is
plain wrong. package.provided is not supported - it's the users fault, if he
insists to sidestep Portage. There is no valid case for your construct. With
regards to QA, it wouldn't be wrong to have a better solution,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alec Warner wrote:
Zac Medico wrote:
Users can unforce them via
/etc/portage/profile/{use.force,package.use.force} in the usual -flag way.
Why new files? Why isn't this just pushed into the use stacking order
over-ridable by the user
Zac Medico wrote:
Alec Warner wrote:
Zac Medico wrote:
Users can unforce them via
/etc/portage/profile/{use.force,package.use.force} in the usual -flag
way.
Why new files? Why isn't this just pushed into the use stacking order
over-ridable by the user (default USE flags, and not
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
