On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 09:57:39PM -0700, Ryan Tandy wrote: > Peter Gordon wrote: > >Zac Medico wrote: > >>The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed > >>extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user. > > > >If they were so "extremely important" then they would not be optional, > >and hence not even be USE flags at all, no? Or am I missing something? > > Hmm... I set out to build a system recently (since 2006.0) with > USE="-*", just to see if I could. After borking python a couple of > times (you know how it is ;)), I was prevented from completing system by > a couple of ebuilds failing on not having c++ available.
Question your method of bootstraping then- note that for gcc it's nocxx, not cxx. Meaning, USE=nocxx _disables_ building cxx; this is why default IUSE is requested, to kill off the 'no' (and it's seperate from my point)- c++ related failures there would be due to either A) bootstrap script was stupid, wasn't working around portage correctly B) portage was dumber then the norm, and was screwing up dependency ordering (woot) ;) C) user intervention somehow screwd up the bootstrapping ;) > My point, now that I've bored you all with a long story, is that if > you're careful about it, no USE flag is *truly* required, at least for a > working system. Sure, some are highly recommended - but isn't that what > defaults are for? :) Better point would be that the dependencies in use aren't actually representative- if it requires c++ from gcc, it should be a use dep (something portage doesn't yet support). *Forcing* it to always have c++ on isn't much better either. ~harring
pgpfRxgHmDTIy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
