| 1 |
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 07:50:27PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday 07 July 2006 19:04, Harald van Dijk wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I hope this is specific enough: toolchain.eclass revision 1.234 |
| 4 |
> > (separating ssp/... from vanilla) log message: |
| 5 |
> > "ssp/pie/htb have their own USE flags sep from vanilla, so people can |
| 6 |
> > utilize those" |
| 7 |
> > when in fact the old USE=vanilla behaviour is unavailable now. You have |
| 8 |
> > never (as far as I know) answered whether it was intended to keep the |
| 9 |
> > old behaviour as an option, and if it wasn't, why the log message is |
| 10 |
> > what it is. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> well i cant answer it if you havent asked it ... me not answering you on irc |
| 13 |
> when i'm not around does not constitute being ignored and anyone who relies |
| 14 |
> on irc in this respect really needs to learn more about irc |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I also mentioned it in a bugzilla comment, though admittedly not as a |
| 17 |
question there. (The gcc 2 bug, I think.) Bugzilla comments are safe to |
| 18 |
assume read, right? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> the log message looks pretty clear to me, i dont see this "hidden message" |
| 21 |
> you're referring to |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> the ssp/pie/htb patches have their own USE flags so separating them from |
| 24 |
> USE=vanilla makes perfect sense ... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I'm not disagreeing with that, but removing an older option is not just |
| 27 |
providing more choices. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> now you can do: |
| 30 |
> gentoo patches + ssp |
| 31 |
> gentoo patches + nossp |
| 32 |
> vanilla + ssp |
| 33 |
> vanilla + nossp |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
gentoo patches + ssp |
| 36 |
gentoo patches + stub |
| 37 |
vanilla + ssp |
| 38 |
vanilla + stub |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> whereas before you only had the option of: |
| 41 |
> gentoo patches + ssp |
| 42 |
> vanilla + nossp |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
gentoo patches + ssp |
| 45 |
gentoo patches + stub |
| 46 |
vanilla |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> like i said in my previous e-mail, forcing stubs onto people even when |
| 49 |
> USE=vanilla *is by design* because i got tired of people who had no clue |
| 50 |
> about the consequences throwing USE=vanilla into their USE in make.conf and |
| 51 |
> then complaining when the lack of SSP broke things ... |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
But I'm not asking for USE="vanilla" to disable SSP completely, I'm only |
| 54 |
asking for USE="vanilla nossp" to disable it. "nossp" is already |
| 55 |
explicitly documented as "NOT FOR GENERAL USE", too. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
> this is also the |
| 58 |
> reason i havent added USE=vanilla to glibc, too many users would simply break |
| 59 |
> their boxes |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
No complaints there. :) |
| 62 |
-- |
| 63 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives