From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50D34139085 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:41:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BD2D02241B4; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:41:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D4692241A7 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:41:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.2.10] (62.65.231.75.cable.starman.ee [62.65.231.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: leio) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8417D340DC7 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 11:41:21 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1485517277.22895.6.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] berkdb and gdbm in global USE defaults From: Mart Raudsepp To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:41:17 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1485515805.22895.4.camel@gentoo.org> References: <1485503640.22895.2.camel@gentoo.org> <20170127083223.GK42019@gentoo.org> <20170127235857.3cd9e847@katipo2.lan> <1485515805.22895.4.camel@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.3 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: b436d9af-3dcf-4178-b6a0-c8a13eedf744 X-Archives-Hash: b28934c17ef034fcee9fe5c9521f7dcd Ühel kenal päeval, R, 27.01.2017 kell 13:16, kirjutas Mart Raudsepp: > If anything, I think this is a suggestion that *maybe* we should a > > way to > > specify a mechanism for allowing a default to be chosen from a > > mutually > > exclusive set, and then: > > Sure, I have some thoughts for this and a rough draft, at least in my > head :) > I don't have it as a priority to sketch it out well alone, but if > someone is honestly interested, I could braindump my ideas in > realtime > medium. Or someone thinks of them themselves :) I wrote a bit about it in my USE_EXPAND=gui proposal. https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/cc39dfafcb33ac0d345c26c0 475723b8 That's the copy of my piratepad draft on the subject. In the end there's a section on it under future ideas. The initial thread start was https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/a2de58fcbf9f214362cd5fdb5f67e6b2 These were the only 2 e-mails in that thread, everyone was busy bikeshedding my USE=gui proposal at https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/eecad370248118c474a0d819fa7f3576 with some of the multi-choice aspects coming up there. Any future complaints by QA or otherwise about versioned gtk USE flags and whatnot get pointed to these, to pick up and actually go forward with this, not just complain. Anyhow, that's off-topic for the REQUIRED_USE stuff here. Mart