| 1 |
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10/20/05, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:34 pm, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > > >> > i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-* |
| 7 |
> > > > > >> |
| 8 |
> > > > > >> noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it |
| 9 |
> > > > > >> off. AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the |
| 10 |
> > > > > >> buildplan and to have sane defaults, certain flags are turned |
| 11 |
> > > > > >> on. |
| 12 |
> > > > > > |
| 13 |
> > > > > > that was a great explanation however irrelevant it may have been |
| 14 |
> > > > > > |
| 15 |
> > > > > > i guess we will have to make 'nocxx' a special case as we strip |
| 16 |
> > > > > > all other 'no*' USE flags from portage |
| 17 |
> > > > > |
| 18 |
> > > > > Sorry, guys, but isn't that what "-FOO" is supposed to be for? If |
| 19 |
> > > > > we already have support for "-FOO", why then do we need a "noFOO" |
| 20 |
> > > > > also? |
| 21 |
> > > > > |
| 22 |
> > > > > Or is there some distinction I'm missing here? |
| 23 |
> > > > |
| 24 |
> > > > you're missing the fact that if we change 'nocxx' to 'cxx' then |
| 25 |
> > > > everyone who uses '-*' in their USE flags will emerge their gcc |
| 26 |
> > > > without C++ support |
| 27 |
> > > |
| 28 |
> > > Really, Don't refuse an idea because this. Having IUSE="cxx" USE="-*" |
| 29 |
> > > and getting -cxx is expected behaviour. |
| 30 |
> > |
| 31 |
> > i never said i was against the idea of getting rid of no* flags |
| 32 |
> > |
| 33 |
> > in fact, i said we should change all flags *except* nocxx |
| 34 |
> > -mike |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> Why single out this one? ones system will not break irreperbly |
| 37 |
> without a cxx compiler, it'll just cause a another recompile to get it |
| 38 |
> to work after breakage if the person is using -* (which has already |
| 39 |
> been said to be hackish and ill-advised, so doom on them! |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
it will actually |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
if you build gcc w/out C++ support that means no libstdc++ |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
no libstdc++ means python on most boxes is now broken |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
no python means no emerge |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
how exactly are you going to re-emerge gcc then ? oh, you cant ... |
| 50 |
-mike |
| 51 |
-- |
| 52 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives