| 1 |
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 10:50:14AM -0500, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> A. use.defaults exists for a reason, and developers are using it to |
| 3 |
> enable functionality. |
| 4 |
> B. Turning off a flag in use.defaults may cause undesired behavior. |
| 5 |
> <snip> |
| 6 |
> that reason is. If it doesn't do anything useful, then yeah, I'd like |
| 7 |
> to see the flag punted from use.defaults because then it's just fluff. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
then your comment about people putting packages in there to work around |
| 10 |
problem X doesnt make any sense |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
entries exist in use.defaults to map a USE flag to the package it represents |
| 13 |
(when such a package exists, things like nptl obviously dont have a mapping |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
by definition, no entry in there is a 'work around' or 'fluff', but exists |
| 16 |
*only* because a USE flag <-> package mapping exists ... if anything, our |
| 17 |
use.defaults file is *missing* a ton of entries (i'll toss in more tonight for |
| 18 |
fun :P) |
| 19 |
-mike |
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives