| 1 |
Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 01:13:34PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Brian Harring wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Semantics of USE=-gtk not working on a package that has gtk forced |
| 5 |
>>> doesn't sound all that nice btw; |
| 6 |
>> Which is why the flag shouldn't be forced unless it's almost |
| 7 |
>> certain that the flag shouldn't be disabled. The gtk flag might not |
| 8 |
>> ever fall into that category, but something like cxx might (nocxx |
| 9 |
>> inverted). |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Flag shouldn't be forced, period imo. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I could not agree with this more. I've been watching this whole thread wondering |
| 14 |
when certain people were gonna see how dumb this idea actually is (no |
| 15 |
offense...I've backed my fair share of dumb ideas). It's a crappy alternative |
| 16 |
for Alec's IUSE defaults. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I know there will be cases where someone will want to force a flag on for one |
| 19 |
(or more) package but there will be other packages that forcing the same flag on |
| 20 |
is undesireable. Unless use.force can be done per-package, it will always be a |
| 21 |
very crappy alternative to IUSE defaults. Even then, it should still *act* like |
| 22 |
IUSE defaults (stuck somewhere in the USE stacking order and "easily" overridden). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Andrew Gaffney http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ |
| 26 |
Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives