Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-libs/glibc: glibc-2.14.1-r2.ebuild glibc-2.12.2.ebuild glibc-9999.ebuild glibc-2.15.ebuild glibc-2.10.1-r1.ebuild glibc-2.14.1-r1.ebuild glibc-2.14.ebuild glibc-2.13-r2.ebuild ChangeLog g
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 04:54:51
Message-Id: 4F18F36D.4050207@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in sys-libs/glibc: glibc-2.14.1-r2.ebuild glibc-2.12.2.ebuild glibc-9999.ebuild glibc-2.15.ebuild glibc-2.10.1-r1.ebuild glibc-2.14.1-r1.ebuild glibc-2.14.ebuild glibc-2.13-r2.ebuild ChangeLog g by Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
1 On 01/19/2012 07:33 PM, Duncan wrote:
2 > However, it could be argued that the various boilerplate "handholding"
3 > we're already doing has set the precedent. That's actually where I got
4 > the idea, after all. But I'm not going to argue it. I'd be more
5 > inclined to argue that we're already over the line in some places, and
6 > that if users really need this, they really should consider a different
7 > distribution as gentoo's obviously not right for them.
8
9 If they don't recognize the connection between --newuse and rebuilds,
10 then I think it's pretty clear that they need to spend some time with
11 the man page to learn the meanings of the options that they're using.
12
13 > So yeah, a mention of --exclude in the manpage's --newuse discussion
14 > sounds quite balanced, to me. =:^)
15
16 http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=b6c51afdaa69eb648cd71e07c880051bf734b8cd
17 --
18 Thanks,
19 Zac