On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Jonatan Liljedahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Michael Homer wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:33 AM, Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 3:58 AM, Daniele Maccari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> > Michael Homer wrote:
> >> > > It would be silly to write that, since the flag definitely won't be
> >> > > enabled by default. -gtk1 won't do anything unless you've already
> >> > > enabled it yourself earlier in the file.
> >> > > -Michael
> >> > That's an interesting point. They're not *real* use flags then, since
> >> > choosing to disable something doesn't actually disable anything, am I
> >> > right here?
> >>
> >> If they're not "real" in the sense that they are not Gentoo-equivalent
> >> use flags, then yes, they're not. But if they're not use flags, then
> >> what are they? I find it better to keep the name than to just invent a
> >> name and have to explain it to people like "well, they're basically
> >> like use-flags" every time. Keeping the name is also a way of giving
> >> credit to Gentoo. I don't consider the name misleading because of
> >> these implementation details.
> >>
> >> Perhaps the best thing to do would be to:
> >> * disallow global negative flags in configuration files altogether.
> >> * have the "+" to be an implicit operator.
> > It actually already is implicit; "foo" and "+foo" are equivalent. I
> > don't mind which the canonical way to do it is.
> >
> > I think it's still necessary to have - be available. It does make a
> > difference with ChrootCompile, and when/if that becomes the default it
> > will behave more or less as requested here. The issue is adding ugly
> > recipe syntax we're obliged to support for backwards compatibility
> > reasons later.
> >
> > Flags can only make affirmative changes; otherwise, you get what
> > configure gives you (the same as you do now). It's a more flexible
> > system than there is now and it leaves options open for the future.
> > Switching to a must-enable system could happen in the long term, but
> > will just break expectations even further in the short and medium
> > term.
> Just to be clear, I didn't propose a must-enable system, but a
> can-disable system. If neither -gtk nor +gtk is given, do nothing, and
> configure will autoconf it if it should.
Flags are boolean. They're either on, or they're off; I don't think
that will be changing (that way there be dragons). Within that
structure, can-disable needs the creation of "nogtk1" flags, which I
guess might be justified in a very limited set of cases. I would
prefer to leave these things to chrooting and out of the recipes.
-Michael
_______________________________________________
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
