| 1 |
Mike Gilbert posted on Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:55:10 -0500 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Alexander Hof <gentoodev@××××××××.net> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Michael Palimaka |
| 7 |
>>> <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>> On 14/11/14 01:05, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 9 |
>>>>> Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE="-cxx"? |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> It is, but I think if that's disabled you're on your own. :-) |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> Perhaps we should add a package.use.force entry for this. Is there any |
| 14 |
>>> reason not to? |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>> There are people that don't want c++ and gcc:4.7 can still bootstrap |
| 18 |
>> without. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
> Those people "know what they are doing" and could un-force the use flag. |
| 22 |
> That would prevent people from accidentally disabling it via USE="-*". |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I'm not normally one to prevent people from shooting themselves, but in |
| 25 |
> this case the safety would be simple to toggle. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The problem is the precedent that sets. (Package.)use.force is the |
| 28 |
equivalent of "going nuke" and IMO it should be kept that way. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
^^ TL;DR ^^ |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Overriding use.force (package or otherwise) should be clearly no-man's- |
| 33 |
land, something done only for stuff like cross-compiling, etc, so far out |
| 34 |
of gentoo support that normally nobody sane would ask for it under those |
| 35 |
conditions, and if they did, they'd clearly mention the conditions and |
| 36 |
explain why they thought the override was necessary and didn't affect |
| 37 |
whatever bug they were seeing. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Use.forcing something isn't even /close/ to default-use, which can be and |
| 40 |
is routinely overridden by people (including me) who "know what they are |
| 41 |
doing" with USE=-*, and as soon as use.forcing something, and then |
| 42 |
overriding it, becomes normal and routine, then we'll need a "really |
| 43 |
force" option to override use.force, much like use.force was the "really |
| 44 |
force" option to override use-defaults. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
So I'd suggest (package.)use.forcing isn't appropriate with c++, because |
| 47 |
there /are/ legitimate reasons to unset it, as already discussed, and as |
| 48 |
soon as people start having to do that with the one flag, nobody user or |
| 49 |
dev in gentoo is going to be able to assume (package.)use.force isn't |
| 50 |
routinely overridden ever again. Again, then we'll need a |
| 51 |
(package.)use.force.really option, and the race will be on to |
| 52 |
(package.)use.force.yes.I.really.really.really.really.mean.it! |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 56 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 57 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives