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 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1H1YpK-0001FK-59 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 01:52:30 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id l021pc1A019668; Tue, 2 Jan 2007 01:51:38 GMT Received: from ppsw-4.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-4.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.134]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l021ni6Y026228 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2007 01:49:44 GMT X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from cpc4-cmbg1-0-0-cust9.cmbg.cable.ntl.com ([82.21.108.10]:60421 helo=maya) by ppsw-4.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.154]:25) with esmtpsa (LOGIN:spb42) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1H1Yma-0005H0-Et (Exim 4.63) for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org (return-path ); Tue, 02 Jan 2007 01:49:40 +0000 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 02:03:53 +0000 From: Stephen Bennett To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental Message-ID: <20070102020353.2b998b80@maya> In-Reply-To: <4599B433.107@gentoo.org> References: <20070101211247.730788c9@maya> <45997C21.4000001@gentoo.org> <20070101224949.23e52440@maya> <459998EF.3000101@gentoo.org> <20070101234750.2198432e@maya> <4599B433.107@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.6.1 (GTK+ 2.10.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "S.P. Bennett" X-Archives-Salt: 8e08e7d5-5bee-4a6b-bbd8-710d7da7065c X-Archives-Hash: 49ed7fbe2c55571de6c70359e1ae2e1c On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:24:03 -0800 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Stephen Bennett wrote: > > The proposal means that all variables listed in USE_EXPAND get > > handled exactly as USE does where profile inheritance is concerned. > > Subprofiles can add to and remove from the value in the parent > > profile just as they can for USE. > > Did I misread what you said earlier? > > Stephen Bennett wrote: > > At present, > > from what zmedico told me, it's handled in a weird manner which > > essentially does half the job, letting you add flags but not remove > > them in subprofiles. "At present" -- that's the behaviour that I want to change by making them incremental. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list