| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 06:20:36PM +0100, Penguin Lover Neil Bothwick squawked: |
| 2 |
> > Ah, thanks for the clarification. But wouldn't changing the USE |
| 3 |
> > variables change (pull in) dependencies and linked libraries? Or am I |
| 4 |
> > misunderstanding what is meant by installed code? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> It looks like in this case, they are removing USE flags that are now |
| 7 |
> redundant, which wouldn't change the code. Adding compile features |
| 8 |
> certainly would. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I see. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Just a thought: the addition of USE flags allow the setting of |
| 13 |
optional dependencies or compile time options. So if a USE flag is |
| 14 |
added, and the user is unaware of such, it might cause some problem or |
| 15 |
inconveniences cough*eds*cough. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If a USE flag is removed, presumeably it is because |
| 18 |
1) The *optional* stuff it used to specify is no longer optional. |
| 19 |
2) The flag is replaced by another of a different name or more |
| 20 |
specific distinction (qt by qt3/4). |
| 21 |
In either case, it wouldn't really bite the user per se (case 2 being |
| 22 |
taken care of by portage letting us know when new flags are |
| 23 |
available). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
As far as I can see, the only downside to removed USE flags is the |
| 26 |
cruft it sometimes generates. (This is not to say I won't welcome the |
| 27 |
new feature being proposed, I am just thinking out loud here.) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Is there anything I missed? Perhaps an important reason why removed |
| 30 |
USE flags would be undesireable in make.conf or package.use? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
W |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Tussman's Law: |
| 36 |
Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come. |
| 37 |
Sortir en Pantoufles: up 1 day, 22:37 |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives