On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 1:14 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:05:03AM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
That's at most an argument that USE=-* should be a theoretically valid
configuration. It does not mean that the setting makes sense for anyone.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:05:03AM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
That's at most an argument that USE=-* should be a theoretically valid
configuration. It does not mean that the setting makes sense for anyone.
USE=-* was maybe a reasonable idea before we had use defaults.
Now, by
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Nov 17, 2014, at 7:03 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 11/18/2014 12:47 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 18. November 2014, 00:38:36 schrieb hasufell:
We just don't want to answer a thousand
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:42:57PM +0100, Alexander Hof wrote:
Mike Gilbert wrote:
There are people that don't want c++ and gcc:4.7 can still bootstrap
without.
Those people know what they are doing and could un-force the use
flag. That would prevent people from accidentally
On 11/17/2014 09:40 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:42:57PM +0100, Alexander Hof wrote:
Mike Gilbert wrote:
There are people that don't want c++ and gcc:4.7 can still bootstrap
without.
Those people know what they are doing and could un-force the use
flag. That would
Am Montag, 17. November 2014, 22:36:10 schrieb hasufell:
If someone using Gentoo uses USE=-* foo bar ... they get to keep the
pieces.
William
Using USE=-* reveals so many random assumptions and untested ebuild
configurations that we should definitely rethink that sentiment.
And
On 11/18/2014 12:05 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
USE=-* was maybe a reasonable idea before we had use defaults.
Now, by setting USE=-*, you deviate from upstream defaults at random places
and pointlessly mess up the dependency calculations of python / ruby /
multilib / ... packages.
Am Dienstag, 18. November 2014, 00:38:36 schrieb hasufell:
I personally don't have a strong opinion on any of those solutions. But
I'm quite tired of people telling me how to use gentoo and what to
expect about correctness of dependencies.
Earth to hasufell. Please stop confusing people. We
On 11/18/2014 12:47 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 18. November 2014, 00:38:36 schrieb hasufell:
We just don't want to answer a thousand
questions when things break for others. That is the whole point of sane
defaults.
Except that sane defaults are not a substitute for
On Nov 17, 2014, at 7:03 PM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 11/18/2014 12:47 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Am Dienstag, 18. November 2014, 00:38:36 schrieb hasufell:
We just don't want to answer a thousand
questions when things break for others. That is the whole point of sane
В письме от Вт, 18 ноября 2014 03:28:08 пользователь Duncan написал:
Tho I actually appreciate the you get to keep the pieces aspect as
Unlike many distros, gentoo actually respects the user and their
right to decide enough to give them the /power/ to break the system, if
they drink and
On Nov 15, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/11/14 09:05 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 11/13/2014 05:30 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 14/11/14 15:01, Rich Freeman wrote:
And I do apologize for piling on a bit - trying to get rid of @system
has been one of my soap box issues for a while. It really seems like
an ugly, if practical, solution.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/11/14 09:05 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 11/13/2014 05:30 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
Suggested policy to get the ball rolling:
In general, a package must
On 11/13/14 21:38, Michael Palimaka wrote:
On 14/11/14 11:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Michael Palimaka
kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ditching implicit dependencies is an interesting idea but not practical.
Nobody wants to the laundry list, and there's little
On 11/13/14 23:15, Zac Medico wrote:
On 11/13/2014 08:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 14/11/14 11:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
Well, the idea would be to maintain the virtual INSTEAD of @system, or
have @system just pull
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
Sorry Zac, I posted my reply before I read this. This is essentially the
point I was making. However, I think this will be cumbersome. With the
current way we do things, its easy to delete packages from @system by
On 11/13/2014 01:13 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Michael Palimaka
kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 14/11/14 01:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE=-cxx?
It is, but I think if that's disabled you're on your own. :-)
Hi,
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 07:20:50 -0500 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 11/13/14 23:15, Zac Medico wrote:
On 11/13/2014 08:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On 14/11/14 11:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
Well, the idea would
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 09:10:43 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 11/13/2014 01:13 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Michael Palimaka
kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 14/11/14 01:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE=-cxx?
It
On 11/14/2014 06:14 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 07:20:50 -0500 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 11/13/14 23:15, Zac Medico wrote:
On 11/13/2014 08:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On 14/11/14
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:03:27 -0800 Zac Medico wrote:
[...]
Sorry Zac, I posted my reply before I read this. This is essentially
the point I was making. However, I think this will be cumbersome. With
the current way we do things, its easy to delete packages from @system
by just doing
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Alexander Hof gentoo...@cosmofox.net wrote:
Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Michael Palimaka
kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 14/11/14 01:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE=-cxx?
It is, but I
Mike Gilbert wrote:
There are people that don't want c++ and gcc:4.7 can still bootstrap
without.
Those people know what they are doing and could un-force the use
flag. That would prevent people from accidentally disabling it via
USE=-*.
Are we talking about forcing +cxx globally or for
On 11/14/2014 11:42 PM, Alexander Hof wrote:
Mike Gilbert wrote:
There are people that don't want c++ and gcc:4.7 can still bootstrap
without.
Those people know what they are doing and could un-force the use
flag. That would prevent people from accidentally disabling it via
USE=-*.
Are
hasufell wrote:
Are we talking about forcing +cxx globally or for gcc (+toolchain)?
Has this been a major problem in the past? Shouldn't people who set
USE=-* also know what they are doing?
* don't ever assume that the user knows what he is doing
* still allow him to break things if he
On 11/13/2014 05:30 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
Suggested policy to get the ball rolling:
In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it directly uses.
However, to avoid ebuild complexity and developer burden there are some
exceptions. Packages that appear in the base system set
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it directly uses.
However, to avoid ebuild complexity and developer burden there are some
exceptions. Packages that appear in the base system set may be omitted
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/11/14 09:05 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 11/13/2014 05:30 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
Suggested policy to get the ball rolling:
In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it
directly uses. However, to avoid ebuild
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 13/11/14 10:17 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 13/11/14 09:05 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 11/13/2014 05:30 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
Suggested policy to get the ball rolling:
In general, a package must explicitly depend upon what it
On 11/13/2014 04:27 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
* C++ compiler and runtime
Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE=-cxx?
It is, but I think if that's disabled you're on your own. :-)
I keep hearing this sentence, but it still doesn't make much sense to
me. Invalid configurations
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Michael Palimaka
kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 14/11/14 01:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE=-cxx?
It is, but I think if that's disabled you're on your own. :-)
Perhaps we should add a package.use.force entry for
Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Michael Palimaka
kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 14/11/14 01:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE=-cxx?
It is, but I think if that's disabled you're on your own. :-)
Perhaps we should add a
Dnia 2014-11-13, o godz. 13:13:01
Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Michael Palimaka
kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 14/11/14 01:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE=-cxx?
It is, but I think if that's
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Michael Palimaka
kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
Ditching implicit dependencies is an interesting idea but not practical.
Nobody wants to the laundry list, and there's little benefit in
maintaining a virtual/system clone of @system.
Well, the idea would be to
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 14/11/14 11:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
Well, the idea would be to maintain the virtual INSTEAD of @system, or
have @system just pull in the virtual and make some arch-specific
additions.
Will that work? Some
On 11/13/2014 08:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org
wrote:
On 14/11/14 11:06, Rich Freeman wrote:
Well, the idea would be to maintain the virtual INSTEAD of @system, or
have @system just pull in the virtual and make some
37 matches
Mail list logo
