| 1 |
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 00:22:50 -0700 Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 07:23:31AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
| > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 21:41:39 -0700 Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> |
| 5 |
| > wrote: |
| 6 |
| > | > The use.force feature is complementary to use.mask. It's |
| 7 |
| > | > exactly the same concept, but inverted. |
| 8 |
| > | |
| 9 |
| > | And both files _should_ be implemented via use deps. |
| 10 |
| > |
| 11 |
| > Huh? How? |
| 12 |
| |
| 13 |
| forcing cxx on via package.mask for gcc |
| 14 |
| sys-devel/gcc[-cxx] |
| 15 |
| |
| 16 |
| forcing it off |
| 17 |
| sys-devel/gcc[cxx] |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Mmm. See, that'll lead to error messages if the user sets USE=cxx and |
| 20 |
then tries to install gcc. With the .mask/.force, it's handled |
| 21 |
automatically and indicated visibly by use flags being (parened). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
| *Full* implementation of use deps requires ability to flip on use |
| 24 |
| flags as needed |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I implemented this a while back for Paludis and then chucked it. It |
| 27 |
doesn't turn out nicely, mostly because of flags like build and |
| 28 |
bootstrap. You'd end up with dumb cases like patch being built with |
| 29 |
USE=build then USE=-build, and all kinds of hairy USE flags being |
| 30 |
turned on. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 34 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives