Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 02:43:08
Message-Id: 200510202243.38043.vapier@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use by "Spider (D.m.D. Lj.)"
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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] ${PORTDIR}/profiles/package.use Dan Meltzer <parallelgrapefruit@×××××.com>