Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 21 October 2005 05:56 am, Marius Mauch wrote:
>
>>Petteri Räty wrote:
>>
>>>Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
>>>Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
>>>file? This would make it possible for dev
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 21 October 2005 05:56 am, Marius Mauch wrote:
>
>>Petteri Räty wrote:
>>
>>>Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
>>>Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
>>>file? This would make it possible for dev
On Friday 21 October 2005 01:23 pm, Michiel de Bruijne wrote:
> On Friday 21 October 2005 04:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> > > Why single out this one? ones system will not break irreperbly
> > > without a cxx compiler, it'll just cause a
On Friday 21 October 2005 05:56 am, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
> > Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
> > Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
> > file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flag
On Friday 21 October 2005 02:44 am, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 10:56:57PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> > > Why single out this one? ones system will not break irreperbly
> > > without a cxx compiler, it'll just cau
On Friday 21 October 2005 04:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> > Why single out this one? ones system will not break irreperbly
> > without a cxx compiler, it'll just cause a another recompile to get it
> > to work after breakage if the person i
On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 17:49 +0300, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
> > Marius Mauch wrote:
> >
> > Gentoo being about choice the new package.use should come before
> > anything user set. I do not see any problem with this if it works in the
> > same way as package.mask already works. Ple
Petteri Räty wrote:
Marius Mauch wrote:
Gentoo being about choice the new package.use should come before
anything user set. I do not see any problem with this if it works in the
same way as package.mask already works. Please, enlighten me.
Because package.use is implemented in a very different
Marius Mauch wrote:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
>
>> Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
>> Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
>> file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
>> default in a way that would
Petteri Räty wrote:
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for eve
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 10:56:57PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> > Why single out this one? ones system will not break irreperbly
> > without a cxx compiler, it'll just cause a another recompile to get it
> > to work after breakage if the
> Before anyone asks, ABKB is help-desk lingo for "A**hole
> Behind Key Board". I
> always preferred that to the id10t error (idiot).
>
See also: PEBKAC
Thanks,
Chris
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Thursday 20 October 2005 11:09 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> So basically if only 'experienced', yet misguided, folks are using '-*',
> then the only bugs to come up from this would be ABKB bugs, leaving them
> with egg on their face for messing with '-*' in the first place.
Before anyone asks, AB
> there is nothing hard about USE="-* cxx" but while most here want to say
> 'fuck
> the users' (and i'm inclined to agree), i'd rather not field those
> bugs/questions/etc...
The average gentoo newbie is not going to know anything about "-*" in
/etc/make.conf. Mostly it's folks that have been ar
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> On 10/20/05, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:34 pm, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Ne
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:47 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:03 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
> >>Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>>On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething
On 10/20/05, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:34 pm, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> > > > >> > i still dont see how this addresses th
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:03 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
>
>>Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
>>>
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we al
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:34 pm, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> > > >> > i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
> > > >>
> > > >> noFOO is used because "FOO"
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> > >> > i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
> > >>
> > >> noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it off.
> > >> AutoUSE is the same way, p
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> >> > i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
> >>
> >> noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it off.
> >> AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the buildplan and to
> >> have sane defau
>> > i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
>>
>> noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it off.
>> AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the buildplan and to
>> have sane defaults, certain flags are turned on.
>
> that was a great explanation ho
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:03 pm, Alec Warner wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
> >>Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
> >>Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
> >>fil
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
>
>>Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
>>Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
>>file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use fla
On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
> Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
> file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
> default in a way th
Dan Armak wrote:
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 23:47, Petteri Räty wrote:
>
>>Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
>>Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
>>file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
>>
On Thursday 20 October 2005 23:47, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
> Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
> file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
> default in a way that
Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags.
Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask
file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by
default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for every local
use flag.
Re
28 matches
Mail list logo
