| 1 |
On 1/3/17 4:08 AM, Justin <jlec> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/01/2017 08:51, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 01/02/2017 10:34 PM, Justin <jlec> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> |
| 5 |
>>> Seems to be very consistent in usage. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> But I'm not convinced it is a correct approach to have use flag changing |
| 8 |
>> this. First thing that springs to mind is if introducing something like |
| 9 |
>> that it should be done consistently across Gentoo, so a GLEP. But |
| 10 |
>> presumably a lot of packages are already built using C++11 without a use |
| 11 |
>> flag given Qt5.7 requiring it etc. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> If using C++11 enables different features the feature should be the use |
| 14 |
>> flag rather than C++11. Couldn't this just be determined using Autotools |
| 15 |
>> etc? What is the gain of the use flag? Immediately it sounds like it |
| 16 |
>> adds complexity without much gain. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I tried to find some example usages from upstream. Two things I found |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> * Most upstreams dropped the flag in recent versions |
| 22 |
> * If present, it is used to append -std=c++11 |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Probably we should keep it local and wait until it is gone everywhere |
| 25 |
> upstream. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Justin |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Agreed. Keep it local. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 34 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 35 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 36 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 37 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives