| 1 |
On Friday 21 October 2005 02:44 am, Harald van Dijk wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 10:56:57PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Why single out this one? ones system will not break irreperbly |
| 5 |
> > > without a cxx compiler, it'll just cause a another recompile to get it |
| 6 |
> > > to work after breakage if the person is using -* (which has already |
| 7 |
> > > been said to be hackish and ill-advised, so doom on them! |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > it will actually |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > if you build gcc w/out C++ support that means no libstdc++ |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > no libstdc++ means python on most boxes is now broken |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > no python means no emerge |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > how exactly are you going to re-emerge gcc then ? oh, you cant ... |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> It could be handled the same way busybox handles USE=make-symlinks: |
| 20 |
> simply abort unless the user makes it really clear via an extra variable |
| 21 |
> that he knows what he's doing. A nocxx flag isn't necessary to protect |
| 22 |
> users. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
no, because then it makes it a pita for the people who legitimately use nocxx |
| 25 |
-mike |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives