| 1 |
Ühel kenal päeval, N, 21.04.2016 kell 15:42, kirjutas Ian Stakenvicius: |
| 2 |
> b) -1 for making it global right now pending resolution of logistics |
| 3 |
> for the profiles/base/use.mask entry, |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I don't think it's unprecedented to just globally use.mask a USE flag |
| 6 |
even if it's not declared a global USE flag. |
| 7 |
Or more like it's common that architectures use.mask local flags used |
| 8 |
in more than one place with a clear meaning it involved a dep they |
| 9 |
don't want or can't keyword. Globally masking and unmasking in one |
| 10 |
profile is kind of similar. |
| 11 |
Those reading PMS or whatnot can speak up if needed, but I don't see a |
| 12 |
problem here. |
| 13 |
The discussion is useful, as I suspect we can get sufficient users soon |
| 14 |
enough, especially if you look into some of the other GUI stuff that |
| 15 |
can work there (e.g gitg/gedit), though the question is what's the real |
| 16 |
use of having any of these if upstream isn't looking into making use of |
| 17 |
this to build their windows binaries or whatnot. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> c) rejection for the proposed ebuild patches pending a toolkit |
| 20 |
> refactoring to be determined later. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Not really a rejection, it's just that I haven't looked into those |
| 23 |
patches with a review mind as of yet. It just sounds like it's worth |
| 24 |
looking at it deeper, that maybe there's more extensive improvement |
| 25 |
possibilities. So just not an ACK as of yet. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> B and C make most of this thread pretty well moot, I guess, but |
| 29 |
> following A, can we decide that USE="winapi" could be a good flag |
| 30 |
> name? If nobody objects I'll use that when leio and I work on the |
| 31 |
> refactoring of gtk+ and likely try to use local flags somehow for |
| 32 |
> now. |
Archives