* Robin H. Johnson (robbat2) robb...@gentoo.org:
1.1 app-arch/hardlink/hardlink-0.1.1.ebuild
file :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/app-arch/hardlink/hardlink-0.1.1.ebuild?rev=1.1view=markup
plain:
So I was told Council needs to approve inheritance of eapi files from
parent profiles?
I'm not sure why, because we shouldn't have any files in default/linux/
which was decided long ago when the new profiles was introduced...
gentoo-x86/profiles/default/linux $ find ./ -name eapi | wc -l
63
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Samuli Suominen wrote:
So I was told Council needs to approve inheritance of eapi files
from parent profiles?
Doesn't http://bugs.gentoo.org/288320#c7 cover this? Why would you
need explicit inheritance?
And which EAPI should be taken, if you have more than one parent
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:28:47 +0200
Torsten Veller ml...@veller.net wrote:
* Robin H. Johnson (robbat2) robb...@gentoo.org:
1.1 app-arch/hardlink/hardlink-0.1.1.ebuild
file :
Torsten Veller wrote:
* Robin H. Johnson (robbat2) robb...@gentoo.org:
1.1 app-arch/hardlink/hardlink-0.1.1.ebuild
file :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/app-arch/hardlink/hardlink-0.1.1.ebuild?rev=1.1view=markup
plain:
Hi,
i would like to start a discussion about reducing the amount of default-enabled
USE flags in
profiles, especially in inherited basic profiles.
Is there any policy, when they are added, how the reason for addition is
documented and when they
are removed from profiles?
In addition, i see a
On 23/10/09 09:28 +0200, Torsten Veller wrote:
An imprecise search (/make .*install$/) revealed another 200 packages:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~tove/files/makeinstallwithoutdie.txt
Let it die before replacing a working package with a broken one.
Thanks
Fixed:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Torsten Veller wrote:
An imprecise search (/make .*install$/) revealed another 200 packages:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~tove/files/makeinstallwithoutdie.txt
Let it die before replacing a working package with a broken one.
Removed from tree:
Thomas Sachau wrote:
In addition, i see a trend to enabled more more more USE flags (either over
profiles or via IUSE
+flag).
I'm not sure for how much of the IUSE=+foo cases this applies but I
can explain one of them:
In xfce-base/xfce4-session-4.6.1-r1 there is +fortune in IUSE
because
Thomas Sachau wrote:
In addition, i see a trend to enabled more more more USE flags (either over
profiles or via IUSE
+flag). Whats the reason for forcing a big load of default enabled USE flags
on every user including
more dependencies, more compile time, more wasted disk space and more
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Samuli Suominen wrote:
So I was told Council needs to approve inheritance of eapi files
from parent profiles?
Doesn't http://bugs.gentoo.org/288320#c7 cover this? Why would you
need explicit inheritance?
Well technically you still shouldn't
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:26:47 +0300
Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote:
Well technically you still shouldn't add EAPI 2 atoms to the child
profiles without them being marked with the appropriate eapi file
entry. Do all the levels of 10.0 profiles use EAPI 2 entries?
Down that way leads
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:24:27 +0300
Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
So I was told Council needs to approve inheritance of eapi files from
parent profiles?
As a full explanation of why this idea sucks, since some people have
asked:
You need to decide which way eapi inherits go. Are
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:24:27AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
So I was told Council needs to approve inheritance of eapi files from
parent profiles?
I'm not sure why, because we shouldn't have any files in default/linux/
which was decided long ago when the new profiles was introduced...
Hi,
i would like to start a discussion about reducing the amount of
default-enabled USE flags in profiles, especially in inherited basic
profiles.
Sounds like a reasonable idea to me, for the base profiles at least.
In addition, i see a trend to enabled more more more USE flags (either
15 matches
Mail list logo