| 1 |
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 16:26, Anton Starikov wrote: |
| 2 |
> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> >>Nah, USE isn't the right place for it. Ebuilds should respect the |
| 6 |
> >>environment variables selecting compilers, such as CC, CXX, FC and so |
| 7 |
> >>forth. The USE flags should be for other things, e.g. patches that are |
| 8 |
> >>required for a specific compiler to work. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > This doesn't make any sense. USE flags shouldn't be sticking their heads |
| 12 |
> > in at all. The patches should check what CC/etc. are set to. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> About USE flags, it's completely different idea from IFC or ICC flags. |
| 15 |
> Just couple flags only (could be more, for example if some devs and some |
| 16 |
> users want to support alternative java machines, not system default for |
| 17 |
> their ebuilds) which tell that you want to for something to be compiled |
| 18 |
> with alternative set of compiler and compiler flags, differ from system |
| 19 |
> default. It just flags that provide extra-functionality. OK, probably it |
| 20 |
> can be done in different way, here I agree. But currently it looks with |
| 21 |
> /etc/portage/package.use very simple and comfortable and coming into |
| 22 |
> gentoo really very smoothly. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
USE flags are for features _within_ packages, not for things you do _to_ |
| 25 |
the package. Choosing a toolchain shouldn't be done with USE flags. |
| 26 |
That's what gcc-config is for. You seem to be rejecting it out of hand |
| 27 |
rather than considering an expansion of its functionality. For example, |
| 28 |
it could read a file to switch compilers in a package-dependent way. |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 31 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives