| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:57:39PM -0700, Ryan Tandy wrote: |
| 2 |
> Peter Gordon wrote: |
| 3 |
> >Zac Medico wrote: |
| 4 |
> >>The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed |
| 5 |
> >>extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> >If they were so "extremely important" then they would not be optional, |
| 8 |
> >and hence not even be USE flags at all, no? Or am I missing something? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Hmm... I set out to build a system recently (since 2006.0) with |
| 11 |
> USE="-*", just to see if I could. After borking python a couple of |
| 12 |
> times (you know how it is ;)), I was prevented from completing system by |
| 13 |
> a couple of ebuilds failing on not having c++ available. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Question your method of bootstraping then- note that for gcc it's |
| 16 |
nocxx, not cxx. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Meaning, USE=nocxx _disables_ building cxx; this is why default IUSE |
| 19 |
is requested, to kill off the 'no' (and it's seperate from my point)- |
| 20 |
c++ related failures there would be due to either |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
A) bootstrap script was stupid, wasn't working around portage |
| 23 |
correctly |
| 24 |
B) portage was dumber then the norm, and was screwing up dependency |
| 25 |
ordering (woot) ;) |
| 26 |
C) user intervention somehow screwd up the bootstrapping ;) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> My point, now that I've bored you all with a long story, is that if |
| 29 |
> you're careful about it, no USE flag is *truly* required, at least for a |
| 30 |
> working system. Sure, some are highly recommended - but isn't that what |
| 31 |
> defaults are for? :) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Better point would be that the dependencies in use aren't actually |
| 34 |
representative- if it requires c++ from gcc, it should be a use dep |
| 35 |
(something portage doesn't yet support). |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
*Forcing* it to always have c++ on isn't much better either. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
~harring |
Archives