1 |
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Finn Thain wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Kito wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > On Aug 23, 2005, at 12:30 PM, Grobian wrote: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > On a somewhat related note, we need to decide sooner than later on how |
9 |
> > distinguish between the collision-protect and non-collision-protected |
10 |
> > profiles in ebuilds, as some things that are getting in the tree break |
11 |
> > with a proper gentoo environment, mostly auto{conf,make} issues at the |
12 |
> > moment (-a -c -f stuff, etc) , as well as python issues creeping up as |
13 |
> > well, but this will probably get more convoluted very shortly... |
14 |
|
15 |
[snip] |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Now, if an ebuild needs to know that it has "2nd class" status, wouldn't a |
18 |
> use flag be appropriate? And if you were to implement such a use flag, |
19 |
> could it not be useful to other second-class citizens? For example, in |
20 |
> "portage for non-Gentoo Linux" or "portage for solaris" profiles. |
21 |
|
22 |
Actually, such a use flag is probably redundant. Isn't that what the the |
23 |
"macos" in "ppc-macos" is for? |
24 |
|
25 |
I suspect the whole question goes away when portage gets prefixes. So my |
26 |
post was probably just noise. Sorry. |
27 |
|
28 |
-f |
29 |
-- |
30 |
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list |