| 1 |
On 21/04/16 11:31 AM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ühel kenal päeval, K, 20.04.2016 kell 22:18, kirjutas Mart Raudsepp: |
| 3 |
>> Basically the only real point I have is that anything kernel_* to |
| 4 |
>> control this probably doesn't make sense. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Oh, just to clarify and avoid misunderstanding: |
| 8 |
> I did not intend to ack the changes to gdk-pixbuf and gtk+ with my |
| 9 |
> message, even if the flag name is changed. |
| 10 |
> It sounds to me like we have some refactoring to do in those ebuilds |
| 11 |
> together with aqua in mind as well, once we have agreed on the future |
| 12 |
> global USE flag name. |
| 13 |
> I also vote 'no' to the profiles changes, because we don't have 6+ |
| 14 |
> packages with the flag yet to make it global use flag quite yet (though |
| 15 |
> it would make sense once we do, and in essence it is a global one that |
| 16 |
> needs masking in other profiles, etc - fiddly with local use flag). |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Once this thread has concluded on a naming, I'm sure we can have a |
| 19 |
> productive gtk/gdk-pixbuf review via IRC :) |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Mart |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Ok, so to summarize: |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
a) +1 for a USE flag instead of KERNEL/ELIBC (that's 4 in favour, 2 |
| 29 |
against i think?) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
b) -1 for making it global right now pending resolution of logistics |
| 32 |
for the profiles/base/use.mask entry, |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
c) rejection for the proposed ebuild patches pending a toolkit |
| 35 |
refactoring to be determined later. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
B and C make most of this thread pretty well moot, I guess, but |
| 39 |
following A, can we decide that USE="winapi" could be a good flag |
| 40 |
name? If nobody objects I'll use that when leio and I work on the |
| 41 |
refactoring of gtk+ and likely try to use local flags somehow for now. |
Archives