Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Detecting gcj in ebuilds

[Jason Stubbs]

土曜日 20 11月 2004 15:13・髟阡�Duncan さんは書きました:
> Luke-Jr posted <200411170444.23945.luke-jr@×××××××.org>, excerpted below,
>
> on Wed, 17 Nov 2004 04:44:23 +0000:
> > On Wednesday 17 November 2004 2:57 am, Duncan wrote:
> >> I would **NOT** appreciate portage taking upon ITSELF to CHANGE my USE
> >> flags behind my back!!!  Count this as one vote for emerge-stopping
> >> errors, NOT warnings that may or may not be seen in the middle of a
> >> string of emerges.  Yes, I use pretend (or more generally, ask), and
> >> would normally catch a repeated emerge there.  However, I still don't
> >> want use flags being changed out from under me.

Commented no this already.

> > This would be not very different than GNOME forcing you to emerge GTK
> > despite having -gtk in your USE...

I agree with this.

> Quite the contrary.

<snip 5 sentences with misuse of capitals>

> The parallel to gtk/gnome in the thread situation would be if there was a
> separate gcj package that was required for the ebuild in question, that
> could then be made a dependency.  That's conceptually quite different from
> changing the use flags on an existing merged package.

Is it conceptually different from changing the USE flags on a package that 
hasn't been merged yet?

<snip 1 sentence with misuse of capitals>

> (That's the minimum, plus possibly an additional binary packaging of the
> existing installation before the remerge, and remerge of it replacing the
> modified package afterward.)

I don't understand the context here after cutting out your yelling.

<snip 1 sentence with misuse of capitals>

> A simple dependency based forced emerge can be expected and
> should be covered by an emerge pretend or an emerge ask.

I don't know about you, but I think that a package requiring certain 
capabilities of another package fits in completely with the definition of 
"simple dependency".

<snip 1 sentence with misuse of capitals>

> Among other things, it's begging for additional security issues because the
> admin had no logical reason to think he had anything installed that was
> affected, when he did. That's in addition to the issues of usurping control
> from the admin, thinking you know better than he does what should happen on
> his system. IMO, that's something MS does, not something Gentoo should be
> doing.

This is just fud. What would be "usurping control" and blah blah blah would be 
to remove the gcj flag from gcc and just force it to be compiled. That would 
solve this as well and would actually be much easier to implement. Yeah, 
let's do it! It'd save me and many others a load of time.

> As for dependency-time checks, great!  I'm all for getting a warning
> before I've emerged all those pre-merge dependencies, after suitable
> functionality has been coded into portage to support that.  Regardless of
> whether that functionality is there or not, however, as a Gentoo user aka
> sysadmin of a Gentoo system, one that takes that sysadmin and
> security-admin job seriously, I'm opposed to changing use flags behind my
> back.

Heh.. "behind my back". Aren't you already aware of what's going on?

<snip 1 sentence with misuse of capitals>

> I'll either fix the problem and rerun the emerge, or I'll do an emerge
> --depclean and clean out all the gunk I now can't use.

<snip 1 sentence with misuse of capitals>

--depclean is broken. Packages dying several hours into an emerge is pretty 
broken behaviour as well. Are you not just afraid of change?

Regards,
Jason Stubbs

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list