| 1 |
El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 19:07 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:30:55 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 18:09 +0200, hasufell escribió: |
| 6 |
> > > It breaks the useflag philosophy, IMO. |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > Useflags were meant as switches. You can turn things on and off. |
| 9 |
> > > Pulling in optional dependencies via useflags does not allow the |
| 10 |
> > > user to turn something off when he sets USE="-foo" emerge fuqbar. |
| 11 |
> > > That should only be valid for virtuals or meta-packages. And that's |
| 12 |
> > > what those are for. |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Maybe we could split them from RDEPEND to some kind of EXTRA_DEPEND |
| 16 |
> > (or something else) to fit this purpose. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> There was already a lot of discussion about this and the community |
| 19 |
> didn't care enough to agree on one of the proposed solutions. You're |
| 20 |
> just reinventing one of them, with a new variable name and the same |
| 21 |
> disadvantages. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Do you have a link to that old thread? Because current situation of |
| 25 |
relying on elog messages also has disadvantages |
Archives