| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 09:58 on Friday 29 October 2010, Fatih Tümen |
| 2 |
did opine thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 21:21, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:11:42 +0300, Fatih Tümen wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> I agree putting -hal is not a good idea unless you dare to break the |
| 7 |
> >> packages that need hal. But I think there is a third option here |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Packages that need hal won't have a hal use flag. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> True, not every package that needs hal has hal use flag. I should have |
| 12 |
> made clear that my implication was those which have (optional) |
| 13 |
> dependency on hal && (thus) has hal flag. For packages that need hal |
| 14 |
> it doesn't matter whether you have -hal in your make.conf anyway, does |
| 15 |
> it? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Correct. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Something that requires hal will (should?) have it as an unconditional DEPEND. |
| 20 |
USE is only for optional features. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives