| 1 |
On 11/13/2014 10:17 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> Isn't it possible to disable C++ in GCC with USE="-cxx"? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> It is.. but unfortunately there's no way in DEPEND to ensure it's |
| 6 |
> satisfied, as you can have a gcc installed with that flag enabled but |
| 7 |
> have a second one (that's actually selected in gcc-config) with it |
| 8 |
> disabled. A pkg_pretend check or a pkg_setup check (if you don't want |
| 9 |
> it to just fail in src_configure) is probably the best way to enforce |
| 10 |
> that one at this time. Unless there are other ways I'm not aware of?? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Is this a case (as was recently suggested) where we're doing something |
| 13 |
stupid rather than asking for help from the PMS? This problem shows up |
| 14 |
in a few places -- off the top of my head: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
* GCC (see sys-apps/systemd-217.ebuild) |
| 17 |
* PHP (see comment in app-text/XML-Schema-learner-1.0.0.ebuild) |
| 18 |
* Python (all over the place) |
| 19 |
* Ruby (all over the place) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Since all of the above are slotted, we can DEPEND on them, but we can't |
| 22 |
actually be sure that we're using the right slot at build time. The |
| 23 |
package manager knows that the right version is there, but it's not at |
| 24 |
the moment prepared to find and use it. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Question 1: is it desirable to e.g. switch compilers, compile systemd, |
| 27 |
and then switch back? At first I thought the PM should respect my |
| 28 |
selected compiler, but after thinking about it for a few minutes, I've |
| 29 |
changed my mind. The compiler deps are just like anything else: if I ask |
| 30 |
portage to install systemd, it should do what it takes to install |
| 31 |
systemd assuming I approve the build plan. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Question2: Is it technically possible to fix this in a new EAPI? I have |
| 34 |
no idea. |
Archives