| 1 |
Mike Frysinger kirjoitti: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 10 July 2007, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:26:19PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> As for IUSE defaults... There were objections against that feature on |
| 5 |
>>> the grounds that it's unnecessary and increased maintenance. Do they |
| 6 |
>>> really offer any benefit over package.use? |
| 7 |
>> Would iuse defaults not be appropriate when a certain use flag is |
| 8 |
>> recommended as the default for most users for a package?? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> other examples that make sense and are a pain with package.use: |
| 11 |
> - local USE flags (suddenly not so local huh) |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
betelgeuse@pena /usr/portage/profiles $ cat base/package.use |
| 14 |
# This file requires >=portage-2.1.2 (see bug #61732) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
# Strongly recommended, otherwise all logos, icons, etc. appear in b/w. |
| 17 |
app-editors/emacs xpm |
| 18 |
app-editors/emacs-cvs xpm |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Seems local to me... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> - local USE flags and changing names |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Normally you would only have to change base/package.use |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> - defaults based on version (feature sucked <= 1.x and then rocked >= 2.x) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
package.use should accept version atoms |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> - developing new ebuilds for personal use |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
/etc/portage/package.use |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> - developing new ebuilds for merging into tree (btw: need to update all these |
| 36 |
> other files in profiles/ instead of just committing the one ebuild) |
| 37 |
> -mike |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
base/package.use |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Regards, |
| 42 |
Petteri |
Archives