1 |
On 10/23/2011 04:57 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> If you only wanted to remove these files, you are free to use |
5 |
>> INSTALL_MASK locally instead of downgrading the quality of tree. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> How is this a quality issue? Why do we have a static-libs USE flag is |
8 |
> packages can't use it to determine whether the package installs static |
9 |
> libs? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> It seems like this is only a "quality" issue in some aesthetic sense |
12 |
> of the word. From an end-user point of view not installing the files |
13 |
> or not building them are the same thing, unless you're talking about |
14 |
> CPU time and tmp space usage. Now, if the time to build those files |
15 |
> was actually significant then I could see an argument here, although |
16 |
> you haven't actually proposed an alternative that addresses this. |
17 |
|
18 |
Yes, I'm talking about CPU time. That's the whole point of |
19 |
USE=static-libs as per description: |
20 |
|
21 |
global use flags (searching: static-libs) |
22 |
************************************************************ |
23 |
[- ] static-libs - Build static libraries |
24 |
^^^^^ |
25 |
|
26 |
Talks of building them, as it should. And as _a result_ it won't install |
27 |
them. |
28 |
|
29 |
The flag would be useless in favour of INSTALL_MASK if it were only for |
30 |
preventing the installation. |
31 |
|
32 |
> This doesn't really impact me much personally, but it just seems like |
33 |
> we nitpick stuff like this way too much when the goal should be things |
34 |
> that work. By all means improve on things, but we shouldn't just be |
35 |
> reverting them. |
36 |
|
37 |
cdparanoia is very near top on my list on this clean up, and the only |
38 |
reason why I haven't fixed it yet has been the pre-knowledge of the |
39 |
crappy build system it has after spending so much time with it already |