From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1FE2MN-0000Vt-R6 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:45:40 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id k1SAhcNQ000151; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:43:38 GMT Received: from callisto.cs.kun.nl (callisto.cs.kun.nl [131.174.33.75]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k1SAfef8021244 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:41:41 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by callisto.cs.kun.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 951922E8216 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:42:55 +0100 (CET) From: Paul de Vrieze To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] QA Team's role Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:42:54 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <20060226222217.GB17257@aerie.halcy0n.com> <44036974.9070200@gentoo.org> <20060227213429.4e8c26df@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20060227213429.4e8c26df@snowdrop.home> X-Face: #Lb+'V@sGJ;ptgo5}V"W+5OCoo{LZv;bh,s,`WKLi/J)ed1_$0;6X<=?utf-8?q?700LVV/=3BLqPhiDP=5E=0A=09=27f=5Dfnv?=@%6M8\'HR1t=aFx;ePfp{ZQoBe+e)JOQ8T5*(_;mHY+cltLGq<;@$Y,=?utf-8?q?O=5C=24=0A=09Tm=23G6M?=,g![Q62J{na*S9d;R[^8pc%u\aiLqU@`kJtYl"^6pxdW Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart6036012.hrIIDzn3LR"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200602281142.55241.pauldv@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 7958ab25-f512-49e5-a468-acb03c15866f X-Archives-Hash: 24cef479e5bc092403e023704fb73837 --nextPart6036012.hrIIDzn3LR Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 27 February 2006 22:34, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Yup. It's a huge policy violation being passed off as a feature. See > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3D2&chap= =3D >1 in the paragraph starting "Occasionally, ebuilds will have conflicting > USE flags for functionality.". If that was the only consideration in this case I would agree with you. I=20 do however also see Stuart's point on use_with. While it is by itself a=20 horible kludge, I agree that it's not really proper design to check for=20 all kinds of flags (a changing set) to verify that php was built with a=20 certain feature. Paul =2D-=20 Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net --nextPart6036012.hrIIDzn3LR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEBCkvbKx5DBjWFdsRAovyAJ0bOAXFV51d16FQNvDVa00/fKKRrQCgg5VS fvQWOHSv8xjlbYFrH0jrwg4= =9mSW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart6036012.hrIIDzn3LR-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list