| 1 |
On Monday 19 December 2005 10:06, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> No. A USE flag can break the "system" target but not break beyond that |
| 4 |
> point. This means a USE flag may be safe during the creation of a |
| 5 |
> stage4 tarball but not during a stage3 tarball. Why? Because during |
| 6 |
> the creation of stages 1 though 3 we only have a limited set of packages |
| 7 |
> and even those packages are compiled and configured in minimal ways. |
| 8 |
> Until we reach the "system" target we do not have a guaranteed working |
| 9 |
> complete system to work with. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
What legal USE flag, other than perhaps build/bootstrap, can break a stage3 |
| 12 |
(system) build? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
If catalyst supports custom use flags via a profile, why not via make.conf? |
| 15 |
Is there an underlying difference between the way use flags are calculated |
| 16 |
depending on their presence in the profile versus make.conf? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
My primary motivation for wanting to be able to use USE flags in the lower |
| 19 |
stages is to shorten the build time and reduce bloat, by using USE flags |
| 20 |
that are perfectly valid for the toolchain packages. I am building for |
| 21 |
servers, not desktops, and would rather avoid the extra step (stage3 -> |
| 22 |
stage4). Catalyst would be an extremely useful tool for me if it were not |
| 23 |
for what seem to be arbitrary limitations. All invalid USE flags are |
| 24 |
thrown out by bootstrap.sh, any standard USE flags should be available when |
| 25 |
emerging system, if they are not something is wrong with portage... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
It is much simpler in my mind to add USE="nptl -pam -nls" to make.conf than |
| 28 |
to create custom profiles, dick around with rsync-excludes to prevent them |
| 29 |
from being deleted when I sync, having to port them over to every new |
| 30 |
release, etc... |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> Except for uclibc... or libc on *BSD... or Mac OS... or Solaris... |
| 33 |
> remember that "Gentoo" is more than just Linux/glibc. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Which is kind of why the order of the bootstrap probably needs to be handled |
| 36 |
by the profile, not portage. I would be willing to bet that the bootstrap |
| 37 |
process for every O/S supported by gentoo does, in fact, have to be done in |
| 38 |
a very specific order. Probably off-topic for this list, but there really |
| 39 |
should be something along the lines of a toolchain set of packages in the |
| 40 |
profiles, similar to the method of using *category/package. Probably in |
| 41 |
over my head here... |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Anyhow, I won't bug you guys about it any more. I'm sure you are probably |
| 44 |
getting a little tweaked about my whining when you are trying to get a |
| 45 |
release out :) |
Archives