I would rather like this to be explicit rather than implicit. Having
access to all versions at the same time is something I won't miss, but
knowing the option is there is nice. Then another automatic mechanism
by recipes could be added without much interference anyway.
Also, wouldn't the non-Curre
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 3:37 AM, Michael Homer
>> My distant, high-level perception of the issue: if I don't have
>> "tcltk" listed in my "gui" flags, or if I have "-tcltk" explicitly
>> listed in my flags configuration, then I _really_ don't want to see
>> any optional Tcl/Tk GUIs being built from
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My main concern is that the answer for scenario 1 is "no".
I may have phrased this badly. What I meant is:
I only want to make sure that the answer for scenario 1 is "no" (ie,
generic flags set by upper levels shouldn't bring u
(I am faking the quoting manually because gmail's mobile client
doesn't do inline well. Hopefully it's comprehensible.)
> Scenario 1: if dist flags sets "gui: qt gtk tcltk" and system flags
> sets "+gui" and I run "USE=-tcltk" on a recipe that has an optional
> Tcl/Tk GUI, do I get a Tcl/Tk GUI bu
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Carlo Calica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just want to
> avoid adding odd Goboisms if other options exist.
I think that's a wise principle (even though I failed to follow it in the past).
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Benjamin Bruheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
