| 1 |
27.11.2005, 15:39:48, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > > Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway. |
| 7 |
>> > |
| 8 |
>> > They are very valuable features and quite easy to use without mucking |
| 9 |
>> > with INSTALL_MASK. I'm against this change without some justification. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> further investigation shows that you can't simply get rid of these as |
| 12 |
>> several core ebuilds use the feature to control the creation of |
| 13 |
>> packages. A quick grep shows that several ebuilds do stuff like. |
| 14 |
>> has noman FEATURES && do_stuff |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> openssl/glibc/gcc/dhcp/boa/gdb to name a few that take advantage of the |
| 17 |
>> no{man,info,doc} FEATURES= already. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up, the |
| 20 |
> respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper solution could |
| 21 |
> be found. When are the quick hacks going to stop? :| |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I can't see why exactly do we need to get rid of useful features? :-( |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
jakub |
Archives