On 10/20/05, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:34 pm, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote: > > 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 > > > > Really, Don't refuse an idea because this. Having IUSE="cxx" USE="-*" > > and getting -cxx is expected behaviour. > > i never said i was against the idea of getting rid of no* flags > > in fact, i said we should change all flags *except* nocxx > -mike Why single out this one? ones system will not break irreperbly without a cxx compiler, it'll just cause a another recompile to get it to work after breakage if the person is using -* (which has already been said to be hackish and ill-advised, so doom on them! > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list > >
-- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
