Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Dirt: To shove under the rug or not shove under the rug? (aka another round of USE_EXPAND)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:14:34
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Dirt: To shove under the rug or not shove under the rug? (aka another round of USE_EXPAND) by "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
1 On Tuesday 27 September 2005 18:38, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
2 > On Tuesday 27 September 2005 11:23, Jason Stubbs wrote:
3 > > So what needs to be done to fix it? Well, what is the purpose of
4 > > USE_EXPAND? Put simply, it is to allow the user to select one or more
5 > > features of a package from a list of choices. How is this different to
6 > > USE flags? The choices all pertain to one aspect of the package(s).
7 >
8 > The way ELIBC, KERNEL, USERLAND are used, is instead something different.
9 > They don't allow users to select what they want, they allow profiles to
10 > declare what they are created for.
12 Which leads me to the one thing I didn't say but feel strongest about.. What
13 is the real point of USE_EXPAND? What can/does it do that USE flags do not?
15 > If some user changes one of these variables, he's *really* screwed up, as
16 > they change quite a few things in the ebuilds (for example, if kernel is
17 > not linux, kdelibs doesn't build support for dnotify, gamin for inotify,
18 > and a few more options in the way).
20 This doesn't quite apply to cross compiling and such, but in general yeah.
22 > I think at least these three variables should be hidden from users, as they
23 > should not mean anything to them.
25 Similar to "build" and "bootstrap"? Note, these aren't hidden either but if
26 the ELIBC and friends should be hidden those should be hidden too.
28 > In alternative, there was the proposal of a use.force file, that would
29 > allow to force some flags on and use that instead of the use-expanded
30 > variables, but currently it doesn't seem to be created and the QA notice
31 > problem is still not solved, those flags should be forced by some profiles
32 > and masked by others, as they are not intended to be changed by users.
34 And we're back to USE flags again... ;)
36 --
37 Jason Stubbs
39 --
40 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list