On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 15:16:49 -0800
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
So Thomáš posted today [1] that the new LibreOffice 4 is going to _need_
an LDAP provider in the future because they are not going to keep it
optional as it is now. Right now, the only provider we have in
On 02/12/2012 00:43, Michał Górny wrote:
How about splitting the ebuild into separate library and server
and fixing the deps? It would be cleaner for people, and we'd just
release a news message that those who need an LDAP server, need to put
it in their @world.
How about no? Split packages
On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 07:58:29 -0800
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 02/12/2012 00:43, Michał Górny wrote:
How about splitting the ebuild into separate library and server
and fixing the deps? It would be cleaner for people, and we'd just
release a news message that those
On 02/12/2012 08:20, Michał Górny wrote:
For users? Since when a correctly split package is a pain for user?
Funny I think you would have guessed... let's say, a Poppler split that
every other update would fail in the middle leaving a system completely
unable to start a PDF viewer without
On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 08:23:30 -0800
Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 02/12/2012 08:20, Michał Górny wrote:
For users? Since when a correctly split package is a pain for user?
Funny I think you would have guessed... let's say, a Poppler split that
every other update would
2012/12/2 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org:
And when was poppler split a library/server split?
I think it was 2k8 or so, before the kde team took over its maintenance.
On 02/12/2012 08:48, Michał Górny wrote:
And when was poppler split a library/server split?
Okay, listen, I tried to tell you this, before, a number of times:
repeating your same line ad nauseam is _not_ going to convince me that
you're right.
When I'm telling you I don't like your idea, you
El dom, 02-12-2012 a las 07:58 -0800, Diego Elio Pettenò escribió:
On 02/12/2012 00:43, Michał Górny wrote:
How about splitting the ebuild into separate library and server
and fixing the deps? It would be cleaner for people, and we'd just
release a news message that those who need an LDAP
On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 11:16:16PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote
Maybe the easiest option would be to keep current defaults and simply
include a news item when libreoffice starts to pull in openldap
on a lot of systems remembering admins that they can safely enable
minimal USE flag for openldap if
On 02/12/2012 15:34, Walter Dnes wrote:
Howsabout following the same protocol as with CXX/NOCXX? In the past,
portage would pick a default if neither was specified.
You don't know what you're talking about I'm afraid.
Before we had USE defaults (i.e. IUSE=+cxx) we had a nocxx (negative)
So Thomáš posted today [1] that the new LibreOffice 4 is going to _need_
an LDAP provider in the future because they are not going to keep it
optional as it is now. Right now, the only provider we have in portage
(as far as me and him can tell) is openldap (although mozldap also exists).
This
Diego Elio Pettenò schrieb:
In
the mean time, I would suggest that, since the desktop profiles already
have USE=ldap enabled, we should default on the same profiles to
net-nds/openldap minimal
to make sure that the default desktop users don't get a copy of openldap
(server) installed.
I
12 matches
Mail list logo
