| 1 |
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 20:49:10 +0200 |
| 2 |
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 19:07 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: |
| 5 |
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:30:55 +0200 |
| 6 |
> > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > > El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 18:09 +0200, hasufell escribió: |
| 9 |
> > > > It breaks the useflag philosophy, IMO. |
| 10 |
> > > > |
| 11 |
> > > > Useflags were meant as switches. You can turn things on and off. |
| 12 |
> > > > Pulling in optional dependencies via useflags does not allow the |
| 13 |
> > > > user to turn something off when he sets USE="-foo" emerge |
| 14 |
> > > > fuqbar. That should only be valid for virtuals or |
| 15 |
> > > > meta-packages. And that's what those are for. |
| 16 |
> > > > |
| 17 |
> > > |
| 18 |
> > > Maybe we could split them from RDEPEND to some kind of |
| 19 |
> > > EXTRA_DEPEND (or something else) to fit this purpose. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > There was already a lot of discussion about this and the community |
| 22 |
> > didn't care enough to agree on one of the proposed solutions. You're |
| 23 |
> > just reinventing one of them, with a new variable name and the same |
| 24 |
> > disadvantages. |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Do you have a link to that old thread? Because current situation of |
| 28 |
> relying on elog messages also has disadvantages |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/71794 |
| 31 |
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/72162 |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Best regards, |
| 35 |
Michał Górny |
Archives