El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 19:07 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:30:55 +0200
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:
> 
> > El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 18:09 +0200, hasufell escribió:
> > > It breaks the useflag philosophy, IMO.
> > > 
> > > Useflags were meant as switches. You can turn things on and off.
> > > Pulling in optional dependencies via useflags does not allow the
> > > user to turn something off when he sets USE="-foo" emerge fuqbar.
> > > That should only be valid for virtuals or meta-packages. And that's
> > > what those are for.
> > > 
> > 
> > Maybe we could split them from RDEPEND to some kind of EXTRA_DEPEND
> > (or something else) to fit this purpose.
> 
> There was already a lot of discussion about this and the community
> didn't care enough to agree on one of the proposed solutions. You're
> just reinventing one of them, with a new variable name and the same
> disadvantages.
> 

Do you have a link to that old thread? Because current situation of
relying on elog messages also has disadvantages