On Sunday 27 November 2005 17:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> A proper solution requires Portage changes. Unfortunately, for some
> packages waiting a year or more to fix something isn't an option.
Maybe not, if we just make man and info two useflags enabled by default in all
profiles and change one-
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:39:48 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came
| up, the respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper
| solution could be found. When are the quick hacks going to stop? :|
A proper s
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 16:28 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 11:12:32AM -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 00:48 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > On Monday 28 November 2005 00:05, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > > 3) FEATURES="noman" is dropped in favour of USE="man" o
On Sunday 27 November 2005 17:12, Ned Ludd wrote:
> USE=(man|info|doc) wont quite work.
> While they could have an advantage that you can use them to control
> depend strings the doc use flag has already been heavily used for other
> things which everybody surely wont want.
As vapier said, doc usef
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 11:12:32AM -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 00:48 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Monday 28 November 2005 00:05, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > 3) FEATURES="noman" is dropped in favour of USE="man" or USE="manpages"
> > >
> > > In light of the above requirements a
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 00:48 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Monday 28 November 2005 00:05, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > 3) FEATURES="noman" is dropped in favour of USE="man" or USE="manpages"
> >
> > In light of the above requirements and the fact that dyn_* will likely be
> > moved into the tree down t
On Monday 28 November 2005 00:05, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> 3) FEATURES="noman" is dropped in favour of USE="man" or USE="manpages"
>
> In light of the above requirements and the fact that dyn_* will likely be
> moved into the tree down the track, #3 seems to be the best in my mind.
> Similarly, it wou
On Sunday 27 November 2005 23:50, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 15:39, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up,
> > the respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper
> > solution could be found.
On Sunday 27 November 2005 23:43, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 27.11.2005, 15:39:48, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> >> > > Except that no{man,info
On Sunday 27 November 2005 23:50, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 15:39, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up,
> > the respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper
> > solution could be found.
On Sunday 27 November 2005 15:39, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up,
> the respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper solution
> could be found. When are the quick hacks going to stop? :|
Is my mail enough as a speak-up
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 23:39 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > > Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.
> > >
>
27.11.2005, 15:39:48, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote:
>> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
>> > > Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.
>> >
>> > They are ver
On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.
> >
> > They are very valuable features and quite easy to use without m
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > | Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be an
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that
> > | we can make it a sort of rule).
> > | H
On 25/11/2005 11:46:54, Marius Mauch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway.
When you say 'to-die' do you mean completely removed, or do you
mean replaced with {man,info,doc} (i.e. removing inverted logic)?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:43:23 -0500 Michael Cummings
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > man pages can't be considered optional (despite what RMS says).
| > They're
| > not fancy extra HTML API documentation, they're core, so they don't
| > get a USE flag.
|
| (not advocatin
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 12:46:54PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten??"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >| Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that
> >| we can make it a sort of rule).
> >
On Friday 25 November 2005 08:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Of course, if FEATURES were in the USE expand list, you could use
> ! features_noman ? ( ) ...
All the way up until FEATURES="noman" is changed to FEATURES="man"...
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> man pages can't be considered optional (despite what RMS says). They're
not fancy extra HTML API documentation, they're core, so they don't get
a USE flag.
(not advocating a USE flag bug...) what about when the man pages are a
duplication of the native documentation?
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that
| we can make it a sort of rule).
| How should manpages that are generated be managed?
|
| The common sense and
On 11/25/05, Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
25.11.2005, 0:58:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Petteno"> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that> | we can make it a sort of rule).> | H
25.11.2005, 0:58:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Petteno"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that
> | we can make it a sort of rule).
> | How should manpages that are generated be man
On Friday 25 November 2005 00:58, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> man pages can't be considered optional (despite what RMS says). They're
> not fancy extra HTML API documentation, they're core, so they don't get
> a USE flag.
I know (and I *really* don't like info for one) but I think I'd rather disable
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:49:23 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that
| we can make it a sort of rule).
| How should manpages that are generated be managed?
|
| The common sense and looking to other ebuilds
Hi everybody, a little question that I'd like to be answered (so that we can
make it a sort of rule).
How should manpages that are generated be managed?
The common sense and looking to other ebuilds would say to always build man
pages, but when it asks me to install something like docbook-sgml-u
27 matches
Mail list logo
