| 1 |
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 00:22:50 -0700, |
| 2 |
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> forcing cxx on via package.mask for gcc |
| 5 |
> sys-devel/gcc[-cxx] |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
If i want to build a cxx-free system, am i supposed to add |
| 8 |
"sys-devel/gcc[-cxx]" to its package.unmask? If so, what will prevent |
| 9 |
Portage upgrading to some package.masked 4.2_alpha version? After all, |
| 10 |
that's what a depatom interpretation would imply. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Or am i supposed to carefully unmask "=sys-devel/gcc-4.1*[-cxx]" only, |
| 13 |
and pray for not overlooking the 4.2 upgrade when it comes (since it |
| 14 |
would bring cxx back in), and that there won't ever be a gcc-4.1.99-r42 |
| 15 |
dev's playground? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Or am i supposed to put "-sys-devel/gcc[-cxx]" in |
| 18 |
some profile overriding file? But then, when the tree mask is changed |
| 19 |
to "sys-devel/gcc[-cxx,-fortran]", my diff rule will suddenly be lost |
| 20 |
(this method of text lines overriding is okay in the context of |
| 21 |
official profiles, where coherent changesets can be done at once, but |
| 22 |
in user's config files, it's hell to maintain). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
In short, i hope that either i have missed something about your |
| 25 |
proposal, or that it's not what will be used to drop the "nofoobar" |
| 26 |
flags and that this will wait for some more userfriendly system, like |
| 27 |
the "set defaults in IUSE" one that has been mentionned in the initial |
| 28 |
post. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
TGL. |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives