Mark Loeser wrote:
> Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> My expectation is that `grep "flag" use.local.desc` will give me a list of
>> packages using that flag (or having it in the description), one per line.
>> Putting paragraphs in there doesn't seem right.
> One could argue that you can't
On 18:45 Tue 15 Jan , Alec Warner wrote:
> On 1/15/08, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 17:00 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > My expectation is that `grep "flag" use.local.desc` will give me a
> > > list of packages using that flag (or having it in the descrip
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Mark Loeser wrote:
>> Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> c) Allow flags from use.desc to also exist in use.local.desc. In the
>>> case that a flag for a package exists in both, the use.local.desc
>>> description overrides the use.desc one. This allows
On 1/15/08, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 17:00 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > My expectation is that `grep "flag" use.local.desc` will give me a
> > list of packages using that flag (or having it in the description),
> > one per line. Putting paragraphs in there
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 17:00 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> My expectation is that `grep "flag" use.local.desc` will give me a
> list of packages using that flag (or having it in the description),
> one per line. Putting paragraphs in there doesn't seem right.
A single long line still fills this "requir
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
Ryan Hill wrote:
What do people think of this?
a) Keep use.desc as it is: a list of common flags and a short general
description of their meaning.
Good.
b) Keep use.local.desc as it is: a list of per-package flags that are
specific to one to a few ebuilds (i think 5
Mark Loeser wrote:
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
a) Keep use.desc as it is: a list of common flags and a short general
description of their meaning.
Sounds good.
b) Keep use.local.desc as it is: a list of per-package flags that are
specific to one to a few ebuilds (i think 5 is the nu
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> a) Keep use.desc as it is: a list of common flags and a short general
> description of their meaning.
Sounds good.
> b) Keep use.local.desc as it is: a list of per-package flags that are
> specific to one to a few ebuilds (i think 5 is the number though i
Ryan Hill wrote:
What do people think of this?
a) Keep use.desc as it is: a list of common flags and a short general
description of their meaning.
Good.
b) Keep use.local.desc as it is: a list of per-package flags that are
specific to one to a few ebuilds (i think 5 is the number though i
Mark Loeser wrote:
Here is a newer revision of the GLEP. I still have multiple methods of
solving this problem (mostly because I want and *need* input from people
as to what they would prefer). Please tell me what you would want to
use so I can come up with a more precise specification. What e
Marius Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 01
Jan 2008 06:09:28 +0100:
> Most of the time when I see complaints about the description of USE
> flags (I'm fully aware of those) the issue isn't the format, just that
> noone else has come up with a better des
11 matches
Mail list logo
