| 1 |
On Thursday, March 17, 2011 19:40:31 Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/17/2011 03:18 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thursday, March 17, 2011 17:59:44 Kevin F. Quinn wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> I'd suggest doing something like: |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >> use hardened && elog ... |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> There's an argument that it's better to make decisions according to |
| 9 |
> >> make.conf settings rather than the host system configuration, not |
| 10 |
> >> least to cater for people doing cross-builds. Assuming cross builds |
| 11 |
> >> work at all; I've not tried that for a long time. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > in general, yes. but this would have the unpleasant side effect of |
| 14 |
> > having IUSE=hardened show up for all packages that inherit the eclass. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > also, this code is run at the pkg_* stage, so it's not the normal src |
| 17 |
> > host feature detection. and we're talking about minor output behavior. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I don't know the specifics of what PMS says about this, if you put |
| 20 |
> hardened in use.force then portage will allow you to use that flag |
| 21 |
> without it being in IUSE. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
that would require listing every package that inherits pax-utils in use.force |
| 24 |
too right ? doesnt sound scalable. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
my proposal, while certainly not perfect, attempts to take a middle ground |
| 27 |
without incurring too much cruft. i think i achieved that while appeasing |
| 28 |
most people in practice. |
| 29 |
-mike |
Archives