| 1 |
Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 05:47 pm, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags. |
| 5 |
>>Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask |
| 6 |
>>file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by |
| 7 |
>>default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for every local |
| 8 |
>>use flag. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-* |
| 12 |
> -mike |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it off. |
| 16 |
AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the buildplan and to |
| 17 |
have sane defaults, certain flags are turned on. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
a profilish package.use would enable maintainers to turn on sane default |
| 20 |
flags while eliminiating noFOO flags and AUTOUSE. The problem with |
| 21 |
make.defaults right now is you can't set a global flag on just a few |
| 22 |
packages. On global flags it's an all or nothing deal. There are some |
| 23 |
packages where a global flag is the default for that package, but not on |
| 24 |
others. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The problem with package.use is you can implement it now, but you can't |
| 27 |
take out use.defaults or noFOO flags because if a user doesn't have a |
| 28 |
portage that handles package.use buildplans will fail. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
The tree would need to maintain the AUTOUSE and noFOO flags for old |
| 31 |
versions of portage. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-Alec Warner (Antarus) |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives