| 1 |
Peter Gordon wrote: |
| 2 |
> Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
>> The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed |
| 4 |
>> extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> If they were so "extremely important" then they would not be optional, |
| 7 |
> and hence not even be USE flags at all, no? Or am I missing something? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Hmm... I set out to build a system recently (since 2006.0) with |
| 10 |
USE="-*", just to see if I could. After borking python a couple of |
| 11 |
times (you know how it is ;)), I was prevented from completing system by |
| 12 |
a couple of ebuilds failing on not having c++ available. One was bison, |
| 13 |
which failed on one of its examples rather than on the program itself. |
| 14 |
I can't remember what the other package was, but it was a C-only package |
| 15 |
(yacc maybe? or did it begin with a 'g'?) that failed in configure - I |
| 16 |
remember wondering where the "Removing useless C++ checks" message was |
| 17 |
when I needed it. Around about then I stopped having spare time, so I |
| 18 |
never filed bugs or investigated further. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
My point, now that I've bored you all with a long story, is that if |
| 21 |
you're careful about it, no USE flag is *truly* required, at least for a |
| 22 |
working system. Sure, some are highly recommended - but isn't that what |
| 23 |
defaults are for? :) |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives