Re: [gentoo-dev] ifc USE flag, fortran support and some general notes about multi-compiler support

[Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1603 bytes --]

On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 16:26, Anton Starikov wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > 
> >>Nah, USE isn't the right place for it. Ebuilds should respect the
> >>environment variables selecting compilers, such as CC, CXX, FC and so
> >>forth. The USE flags should be for other things, e.g. patches that are
> >>required for a specific compiler to work.
> > 
> > 
> > This doesn't make any sense. USE flags shouldn't be sticking their heads
> > in at all. The patches should check what CC/etc. are set to.
> 
> About USE flags, it's completely different idea from IFC or ICC flags.
> Just couple flags only (could be more, for example if some devs and some 
> users want to support alternative java machines, not system default for 
> their ebuilds) which tell that you want to for something to be compiled 
> with alternative set of compiler and compiler flags, differ from system 
> default. It just flags that provide extra-functionality. OK, probably it 
> can be done in different way, here I agree. But currently it looks with 
> /etc/portage/package.use very simple and comfortable and coming into 
> gentoo really very smoothly.

USE flags are for features _within_ packages, not for things you do _to_
the package. Choosing a toolchain shouldn't be done with USE flags.
That's what gcc-config is for. You seem to be rejecting it out of hand
rather than considering an expansion of its functionality. For example,
it could read a file to switch compilers in a package-dependent way.
-- 
Donnie Berkholz
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]