| 1 |
On 03/17/2011 11:45 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday, March 17, 2011 19:40:31 Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 03/17/2011 03:18 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Thursday, March 17, 2011 17:59:44 Kevin F. Quinn wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> I'd suggest doing something like: |
| 6 |
>>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> use hardened && elog ... |
| 8 |
>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> There's an argument that it's better to make decisions according to |
| 10 |
>>>> make.conf settings rather than the host system configuration, not |
| 11 |
>>>> least to cater for people doing cross-builds. Assuming cross builds |
| 12 |
>>>> work at all; I've not tried that for a long time. |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> in general, yes. but this would have the unpleasant side effect of |
| 15 |
>>> having IUSE=hardened show up for all packages that inherit the eclass. |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>> also, this code is run at the pkg_* stage, so it's not the normal src |
| 18 |
>>> host feature detection. and we're talking about minor output behavior. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> I don't know the specifics of what PMS says about this, if you put |
| 21 |
>> hardened in use.force then portage will allow you to use that flag |
| 22 |
>> without it being in IUSE. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> that would require listing every package that inherits pax-utils in use.force |
| 25 |
> too right ? doesnt sound scalable. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
No, because use.force applies to all packages. I guess you were thinking |
| 28 |
of package.use.force. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> my proposal, while certainly not perfect, attempts to take a middle ground |
| 31 |
> without incurring too much cruft. i think i achieved that while appeasing |
| 32 |
> most people in practice. |
| 33 |
> -mike |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Shrug, I just thought I'd mention it. |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Thanks, |
| 38 |
Zac |
Archives