On 10/20/05, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote:
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:34 pm, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> > > > >> > i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-*
> > > > >>
> > > > >> noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it
> > > > >> off. AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the
> > > > >> buildplan and to have sane defaults, certain flags are turned on.
> > > > >
> > > > > that was a great explanation however irrelevant it may have been
> > > > >
> > > > > i guess we will have to make 'nocxx' a special case as we strip all
> > > > > other 'no*' USE flags from portage
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, guys, but isn't that what "-FOO" is supposed to be for?  If we
> > > > already have support for "-FOO", why then do we need a "noFOO" also?
> > > >
> > > > Or is there some distinction I'm missing here?
> > >
> > > you're missing the fact that if we change 'nocxx' to 'cxx' then everyone
> > > who uses '-*' in their USE flags will emerge their gcc without C++
> > > support
> >
> > Really, Don't refuse an idea because this.  Having IUSE="cxx"  USE="-*"
> > and getting -cxx is expected behaviour.
>
> i never said i was against the idea of getting rid of no* flags
>
> in fact, i said we should change all flags *except* nocxx
> -mike
Why single out this one?  ones system will not break irreperbly
without a cxx compiler, it'll just cause a another recompile to get it
to work after breakage if the person is using -* (which has already
been said to be hackish and ill-advised, so doom on them!
> --
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list