> 3. package has not been built. (?)
The answer is False, not unknown, as I keep saying. If you're still at
uni, go take a course in Probability. There, you'll meet "conditional
probability". If A is False, then the probability of B, given that B
*depends* on A, is zero.
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gen
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 23:21 +0100, Paul Bredbury wrote:
> > Ah... that was an example of a package that isn't installed that
> > *shouldn't* have *negative* return from built_with_use.
>
> Wrong. Substitute "positive" for "negative", and your sentence makes
> sense, but invalidates your point.
Ah,
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 22:48 +0100, Paul Bredbury wrote:
> Devs here seem to think that returning a logically wrong value is OK, as
> long as it's returned *quickly* and *simply*.
Absolutely. Worse is better.
Ed
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Andrew Gaffney wrote:
Flag shouldn't be forced, period imo.
I could not agree with this more. I've been watching this whole thread
wondering when certain people were gonna see how dumb this idea actually
is (no offense...I've backed my fair share of dumb ideas). It's a crappy
alternative for
On Monday 07 August 2006 23:39, Paul Bredbury wrote:
> That's what SpanKY said. Then he "fixed" quake2-data in bug #139693 to
> include has_version, simply to hide the broken behaviour of
> built_with_use.
> So, would you have fixed the bug differently, or are you using the word
> "plain" in the h
> Ah... that was an example of a package that isn't installed that
> *shouldn't* have *negative* return from built_with_use.
Wrong. Substitute "positive" for "negative", and your sentence makes
sense, but invalidates your point.
> Equally, it hasn't been built *without* that USE flag. Non-self-du
> Second, does portage even consult vdb for a package in
> package.provided?
It *should*, especially in has_version, otherwise it's ignoring very
relevant information. See the patches on bug #139842.
Devs here seem to think that returning a logically wrong value is OK, as
long as it's returned *
> Checking for a package that isn't either a direct or indirect dependency is
> plain wrong.
That's what SpanKY said. Then he "fixed" quake2-data in bug #139693 to
include has_version, simply to hide the broken behaviour of
built_with_use.
So, would you have fixed the bug differently, or are you
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 14:14:11 -0700
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 01:13:34PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> > Brian Harring wrote:
> > > Semantics of USE=-gtk not working on a package that has gtk
> > > forced doesn't sound all that nice btw;
> >
> > Which is why th
Brian Harring wrote:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 01:13:34PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
Semantics of USE=-gtk not working on a package that has gtk forced
doesn't sound all that nice btw;
Which is why the flag shouldn't be forced unless it's almost
certain that the flag shouldn't
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 01:13:34PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > Semantics of USE=-gtk not working on a package that has gtk forced
> > doesn't sound all that nice btw;
>
> Which is why the flag shouldn't be forced unless it's almost
> certain that the flag shouldn't be dis
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 03:52:35PM +, Alec Warner wrote:
>
> >> Brian, default USE in IUSE is not a backwards compatable change and this
> >> is easier ;)
> >
> > An EAPI bump is pretty simple from where I'm sitting, and implementing
> > it isn't all that hard.
> >
> > Meanwhile, the questi
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brian Harring wrote:
> Semantics of USE=-gtk not working on a package that has gtk forced
> doesn't sound all that nice btw;
Which is why the flag shouldn't be forced unless it's almost certain that the
flag shouldn't be disabled. The gtk flag migh
-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 u
>> Brian, default USE in IUSE is not a backwards compatable change and this
>> is easier ;)
>
> An EAPI bump is pretty simple from where I'm sitting, and implementing
> it isn't all that hard.
>
> Meanwhile, the question should be "which is desirable", not "which can
> I glue in quickest" ;)
>
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:01:12AM +, 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 (
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, but
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 thi
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 15:27 +0100, Paul Bredbury wrote:
> >if built_with_use sci-libs/lapack-atlas ifc; then
> >...
> >die "Inconsistent Fortran compilers"
> >fi
> My challenge was to find an example of an ebuild which is *not*
> installed (taking into account package.provid
Paul Bredbury wrote:
I'm trying to teach logic to schoolkids who are using the argument that
I'm outnumbered 5 to 1, therefore I'm wrong. This is a really crappy
situation to be in, for anyone who wants to improve Portage rather than
just be called a dick by schoolkids.
Stop these ad-hominem at
>if built_with_use sci-libs/lapack-atlas ifc; then
>...
>die "Inconsistent Fortran compilers"
>fi
My challenge was to find an example of an ebuild which is *not*
installed (taking into account package.provided, thanks to my patch) but
which should have *positive* "built_wit
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 package
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 12:37 +0100, Paul Bredbury wrote:
> > 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
> 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 Russel
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
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 becau
27 matches
Mail list logo
