| 1 |
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 14:14:11 -0700 |
| 2 |
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 01:13:34PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Brian Harring wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > Semantics of USE=-gtk not working on a package that has gtk |
| 7 |
> > > forced doesn't sound all that nice btw; |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Which is why the flag shouldn't be forced unless it's almost |
| 10 |
> > certain that the flag shouldn't be disabled. The gtk flag might |
| 11 |
> > not ever fall into that category, but something like cxx might |
| 12 |
> > (nocxx inverted). |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Flag shouldn't be forced, period imo. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
What about masked flags, should those exist? Because use.force and |
| 17 |
use.mask are pretty much the same: accounting for configurations |
| 18 |
(=profiles) where support for a flag is not available/not optional |
| 19 |
(IIRC one example was USE=hardened on hardened profiles, solar may |
| 20 |
correct me here). |
| 21 |
So if you want to deny one, you should deny both. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Marius |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
| 29 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |
Archives