| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 23:35 -0600, Mikey wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 19 December 2005 10:06, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > No. A USE flag can break the "system" target but not break beyond that |
| 5 |
> > point. This means a USE flag may be safe during the creation of a |
| 6 |
> > stage4 tarball but not during a stage3 tarball. Why? Because during |
| 7 |
> > the creation of stages 1 though 3 we only have a limited set of packages |
| 8 |
> > and even those packages are compiled and configured in minimal ways. |
| 9 |
> > Until we reach the "system" target we do not have a guaranteed working |
| 10 |
> > complete system to work with. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> What legal USE flag, other than perhaps build/bootstrap, can break a stage3 |
| 13 |
> (system) build? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
hal (or any other that requires kernel sources) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> If catalyst supports custom use flags via a profile, why not via make.conf? |
| 18 |
> Is there an underlying difference between the way use flags are calculated |
| 19 |
> depending on their presence in the profile versus make.conf? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Not so much as there is an underlying definition of what each stage |
| 22 |
represents. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> My primary motivation for wanting to be able to use USE flags in the lower |
| 25 |
> stages is to shorten the build time and reduce bloat, by using USE flags |
| 26 |
> that are perfectly valid for the toolchain packages. I am building for |
| 27 |
> servers, not desktops, and would rather avoid the extra step (stage3 -> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
THEN MAKE A PROFILE. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer without busting out the |
| 32 |
<blink></blink> tags. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> stage4). Catalyst would be an extremely useful tool for me if it were not |
| 35 |
> for what seem to be arbitrary limitations. All invalid USE flags are |
| 36 |
> thrown out by bootstrap.sh, any standard USE flags should be available when |
| 37 |
> emerging system, if they are not something is wrong with portage... |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
What's a "standard" USE flag? There are *tons* of examples of circular |
| 40 |
dependencies and other issues with using certain USE flags during |
| 41 |
"emerge system", which is the primary reason why we are removing the |
| 42 |
lower stages from distribution. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> It is much simpler in my mind to add USE="nptl -pam -nls" to make.conf than |
| 45 |
> to create custom profiles, dick around with rsync-excludes to prevent them |
| 46 |
> from being deleted when I sync, having to port them over to every new |
| 47 |
> release, etc... |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
What is in your mind and what is truth don't exactly match up. Why do |
| 50 |
you need rsync-excludes? Why do you need to port anything? Either I am |
| 51 |
not understanding or you don't exactly understand how a profile works. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
You need exactly two files: parent and make.defaults |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Point parent to the 2005.1 profile. In make.defaults you need exactly 1 |
| 56 |
line, which is your changed USE from what 2005.1 defaults to. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 60 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 61 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 62 |
Games - Developer |
| 63 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives