1 |
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 00:05:53 -0600 |
2 |
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 02:51:53 +0000 |
5 |
> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
|
7 |
> > Ryan, I disagree with your proposal. If I enable a use flag for the |
8 |
> > "meta" @kde and also disable it for @kdenetwork, I don't expect my |
9 |
> > option for the @kde "meta" to override my option for @kdenetwork. |
10 |
> > As Zac proposed, an incremental stack makes more sense. Before we |
11 |
> > had sets, when we enabled a use flag for a meta and disabled it for |
12 |
> > an ebuild pulled by the meta, we never expected the option for the |
13 |
> > ebuild to be overridden by the option for the meta. |
14 |
|
15 |
> Yes, that's what I said. ;) |
16 |
> |
17 |
> The nested set's flags (@kde-network) override the parent set's flags |
18 |
> (@kde). |
19 |
|
20 |
Though I'm still not sure what happens when a package is in two |
21 |
unrelated sets.. |
22 |
|
23 |
@gnome: |
24 |
RDEPEND=">=gnome-extra/gnome-screensaver-2.22.2" |
25 |
|
26 |
@xfce4: |
27 |
RDEPEND="gnome-extra/gnome-screensaver" |
28 |
|
29 |
package.use: |
30 |
@gnome opengl |
31 |
@xfce -opengl |
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect |
36 |
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect |
37 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |