[gentoo-dev] Re: "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread Duncan
Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 07:55:52 -0500 as excerpted: > Now, auto-unmask could still propose sticking USE=+foo in your > package.use if you have USE=-foo in your make.conf, which is already the > behavior today. If you've made any explicit USE setting in your > configuration,

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread Kent Fredric
On 12 February 2016 at 03:43, M. J. Everitt wrote: > auto-unmask has a very inconsistent, unstable way of > working with a package.use folder not file ... auto-unmask consistently adds items to the file with the highest dictionary sort. So if you name all the files with

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread M. J. Everitt
On 11/02/16 14:32, Kent Fredric wrote: >> and has no support of per-category files (that I know of). > # /etc/portage/package.use/dev-qt > dev-qt/* qt3support > > ^ Legal, works > > Portage does, auto-unmask has a very inconsistent, unstable way of working with a package.use folder not file ...

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread M. J. Everitt
On 11/02/16 14:46, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 12 February 2016 at 03:43, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> auto-unmask has a very inconsistent, unstable way of >> working with a package.use folder not file ... > > auto-unmask consistently adds items to the file with the highest >

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread Kent Fredric
On 12 February 2016 at 03:48, M. J. Everitt wrote: > Well, that's obvious Makes more sense if you read this: > Any file in this directory, directories of other profiles or top-level > "profiles" directory that begins with "package." or "use." > can be more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread Kent Fredric
On 12 February 2016 at 18:56, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > So my USE="-* ..." (without letting portage do autounmasking) would > continue to work just like it does now, correct? I would hope so. And obviously, this feature would be potentially tenous, and might be wise to only activate

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

2016-02-11 Thread Michał Górny
Dear Ignorant Patrick, On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:15:34 +0100 Patrick Lauer wrote: > ... or why just changing stuff is not enough: > > A few days ago I was told that > http://euscan.gentooexperimental.org/herds/ was displaying an empty > list. Which is annoying because people

[gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

2016-02-11 Thread Patrick Lauer
... or why just changing stuff is not enough: A few days ago I was told that http://euscan.gentooexperimental.org/herds/ was displaying an empty list. Which is annoying because people sometimes want to see what upstream updates are available for their herd. Well, we renamed herd to project.

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread Róbert Čerňanský
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 07:55:52 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Kent Fredric > wrote: > > On 11 February 2016 at 15:51, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> In this case you just wouldn't enable python 2.7 support, but

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 11 February 2016 at 15:51, Rich Freeman wrote: >> In this case you just wouldn't enable python 2.7 support, but you >> wouldn't disable it either. Portage would just pull it in where it is >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > On 02/10/2016 06:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> Ditto for stuff like 32-bit support for half the libraries on your >> system when you're using something like wine. Just don't set the >> flag except explicitly if you

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread M. J. Everitt
On 11/02/16 12:55, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: >> On 11 February 2016 at 15:51, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> In this case you just wouldn't enable python 2.7 support, but you >>> wouldn't disable it either.

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread Kent Fredric
On 12 February 2016 at 03:19, M. J. Everitt wrote: > I would avoid complicating the USE flag system .. it's straightforward > as it is, and has already been 'tweaked' by the auto-unmask feature, > leading to large package.use files and has no support of per-category > files

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread NP-Hardass
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/11/2016 07:59 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Daniel Campbell > wrote: >> >> On 02/10/2016 06:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> >>> Ditto for stuff like 32-bit support for half the libraries on >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread Kent Fredric
On 12 February 2016 at 02:54, NP-Hardass wrote: > Just a slightly OT side note... Quite, these are the *sorts* of things I've been mulling over for a bit without coming to a concrete implementation idea. > I split mine off into a separate file (using a directory for

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread William Hubbs
I'm just picking a random message in the thread to reply to. In the past, we had a feature, I think it was called "auto use", that would automatically turn on a use flag if the package that was needed to support it was installed. As an example, if we still had this, python_targets_2_7 would be

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread Daniel Campbell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/11/2016 04:01 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > I'm just picking a random message in the thread to reply to. > > In the past, we had a feature, I think it was called "auto use", > that would automatically turn on a use flag if the package that was >

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > No, lazy USE in this discussion is akin to installing, say, Steam. > That requires a lot of packages that must be rebuilt with abi_x86_32. > In such a situation, if there was something like USE="~abi_x86_32" > (the ~ is

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread Daniel Campbell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/11/2016 05:23 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Daniel Campbell > wrote: >> >> No, lazy USE in this discussion is akin to installing, say, >> Steam. That requires a lot of packages that must be

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread Daniel Campbell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/11/2016 04:59 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Daniel Campbell > wrote: >> >> On 02/10/2016 06:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> >>> Ditto for stuff like 32-bit support for half the libraries on

Re: [gentoo-dev] Uncoordinated changes

2016-02-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Please, next time someone has the brilliant idea of changing stuff just > to change it (I still don't see a reason why we had to change > metadata.xml?), it should be required that support tools are fixed > *before* the

Re: [gentoo-dev] "Lazy" use flags?

2016-02-11 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > Ah, I think I see what you mean now. That's actually a bit more > predictable and requires less action on behalf of the user. I'd like > to add that, if we do this, could Portage output which USE flags were > being

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: media-libs/gluon

2016-02-11 Thread Michael Palimaka
# Michael Palimaka (12 Feb 2016) # Fails to build. No revdeps. Masked for removal in 30 days. # Bug 574432 media-libs/gluon

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-11 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 10/02/16 08:46 PM, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 11:00:15AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius > wrote: > >> Oh, eudev also doesn't handle network link setup given that >> external tools already do this just fine. That's another >>