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