| 1 |
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 22:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:19 pm, Dave Nebinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > >> > i still dont see how this addresses the nocxx / USE=-* |
| 4 |
> > >> |
| 5 |
> > >> noFOO is used because "FOO" is on by default, and noFOO turns it off. |
| 6 |
> > >> AutoUSE is the same way, package bar is included in the buildplan and to |
| 7 |
> > >> have sane defaults, certain flags are turned on. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > that was a great explanation however irrelevant it may have been |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > i guess we will have to make 'nocxx' a special case as we strip all other |
| 12 |
> > > 'no*' USE flags from portage |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Sorry, guys, but isn't that what "-FOO" is supposed to be for? If we |
| 15 |
> > already have support for "-FOO", why then do we need a "noFOO" also? |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > Or is there some distinction I'm missing here? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> you're missing the fact that if we change 'nocxx' to 'cxx' then everyone who |
| 20 |
> uses '-*' in their USE flags will emerge their gcc without C++ support |
| 21 |
> -mike |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Yes. And that is as intended with -*. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Really, Don't refuse an idea because this. Having IUSE="cxx" USE="-*" |
| 27 |
and getting -cxx is expected behaviour. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Not having a C++ compiler might be just exactly what they want, |
| 30 |
right? :) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
//Spider |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
begin .signature |
| 35 |
Tortured users / Laughing in pain |
| 36 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 37 |
end |
Archives