Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 12:29:11
Message-Id: 200508110826.49908.vapier@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] We have "doc" USE flag, why not a "man" USE flag too by Jason Stubbs
1 On Thursday 11 August 2005 07:02 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
2 > On Thursday 11 August 2005 09:04, Mike Frysinger wrote:
3 > > On Wednesday 10 August 2005 07:56 pm, Jason Stubbs wrote:
4 > > > I was referring to compiler version. Portage FEATURES are not a
5 > > > guaranteed part of an ebuild's "shell". Let me put it another way,
6 > > > should ebuilds handle NOCOLOR as well?
7 > >
8 > > no, but why should NOCOLOR affect how a package is built/installed ? the
9 > > point here is that we dont really care whether it's FEATURES or USE or
10 > > what, as long as we have the ability to control DEPEND/SRC_URI/behavior
11 > > in an ebuild depending on whether the user wants tests/manpages/etc...
12 >
13 > With noman and the like, how's the following for a solution? A lot of the
14 > ebuild functions contained within portage will be moving into the tree once
15 > signing is in. What about adding {pre,post}_src_{compile,install,...} hooks
16 > into portage that will live in the tree that USE="man" support can be
17 > implemented in globally? For those packages that have a specific interest,
18 > the USE flag will be available. Everything should be happy on the ebuild
19 > side of things. (On the U/I side of things, stuff can be done to cut down
20 > the noise.)
21
22 so you're saying that the default ebuild.sh functions are going to be moving
23 into the tree to a place which will be auto-sourced before the ebuild and its
24 eclasses ?
25 -mike
26 --
27 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies