| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: |
| 5 |
| On Thursday 20 October 2005 21:25, Dan Armak wrote: |
| 6 |
| |
| 7 |
|>True. I forget - why can't we solve the problem of all nofoo USE flags |
| 8 |
this |
| 9 |
|>way? Or is the (remaining) problem only with local flags? |
| 10 |
| |
| 11 |
| Too many people using -* (due to auto flags) so that will break for |
| 12 |
most of |
| 13 |
| them. |
| 14 |
| It's one of the reasons we have nocxx for example (you see how many |
| 15 |
people |
| 16 |
| would break with -cxx on useflags? :P). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think you're missing the context. He's saying we solve the nofoo |
| 19 |
problem by adding foo to profiles instead, not by adding nofoo. |
| 20 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 21 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
iD8DBQFDV/MmXVaO67S1rtsRAh1HAJ4+StXYt4k/ylB5bd3b7v9wPjgnAQCdHleY |
| 24 |
RElr49K+bgam51S/ZHJlUzo= |
| 25 |
=34il |
| 26 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives