1 |
On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:34 pm, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
3 |
> > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote: |
4 |
> > > >> > i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-* |
5 |
> > > >> |
6 |
> > > >> noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it |
7 |
> > > >> off. AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the |
8 |
> > > >> buildplan and to have sane defaults, certain flags are turned on. |
9 |
> > > > |
10 |
> > > > that was a great explanation however irrelevant it may have been |
11 |
> > > > |
12 |
> > > > i guess we will have to make 'nocxx' a special case as we strip all |
13 |
> > > > other 'no*' USE flags from portage |
14 |
> > > |
15 |
> > > Sorry, guys, but isn't that what "-FOO" is supposed to be for? If we |
16 |
> > > already have support for "-FOO", why then do we need a "noFOO" also? |
17 |
> > > |
18 |
> > > Or is there some distinction I'm missing here? |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > you're missing the fact that if we change 'nocxx' to 'cxx' then everyone |
21 |
> > who uses '-*' in their USE flags will emerge their gcc without C++ |
22 |
> > support |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Really, Don't refuse an idea because this. Having IUSE="cxx" USE="-*" |
25 |
> and getting -cxx is expected behaviour. |
26 |
|
27 |
i never said i was against the idea of getting rid of no* flags |
28 |
|
29 |
in fact, i said we should change all flags *except* nocxx |
30 |
-mike |
31 |
-- |
32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |