1 |
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 23:39 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
2 |
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 22:09, Ned Ludd wrote: |
3 |
> > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 07:58 -0500, Ned Ludd wrote: |
4 |
> > > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:46 +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: |
5 |
> > > > Except that no{man,info,doc} are on the to-die list anyway. |
6 |
> > > |
7 |
> > > They are very valuable features and quite easy to use without mucking |
8 |
> > > with INSTALL_MASK. I'm against this change without some justification. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > further investigation shows that you can't simply get rid of these as |
11 |
> > several core ebuilds use the feature to control the creation of |
12 |
> > packages. A quick grep shows that several ebuilds do stuff like. |
13 |
> > has noman FEATURES && do_stuff |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > openssl/glibc/gcc/dhcp/boa/gdb to name a few that take advantage of the |
16 |
> > no{man,info,doc} FEATURES= already. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Core packages or not, they are all broken. When the requirement came up, the |
19 |
> respective maintainers should have spoken up so that a proper solution could |
20 |
> be found. When are the quick hacks going to stop? :| |
21 |
|
22 |
Yeah I can also confirm that things are broken and hacks probably wont |
23 |
stop till upstream for a given package starts making things like |
24 |
nroff/groff optional vs forced. I really don't think we will see that |
25 |
happening anytime soon. |
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
30 |
Gentoo Linux |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |