Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage suggestion

[Spider <spider@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1272 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:03:32 +0000
James Harlow <james@is.never.wrong.nu> wrote:


> > Here's the point,  we can easly remove the dependency on esd, and if
> > the code works, okay.  However, then you have an untracked
> > dependency when esd -is- installed but set as USE="-esd" , as it
> > will be needed, but not listed as such.


 
> Sure. I'm implicitly assuming that the --without-esd ./configure
> switch does the right thing, which obviously needs to be tested. But
> it's a pretty simple test.
> 
> That's what you were referring to, right?

No, if that isn't used its a simple thing to add a USE flag.  The issue
is with things that go...
"do I have alsa?  no...  not building alsa interface"
"do I have esound? no .. not building esound interface"   


without a choice to -disable (or enable) such things, when you can state
USE="-*" and then still get everything included, no dependencies tracked
and a hosed system when you finally try to live without alsa+esound.

too many builds use auto* functions like that, and no. "dynamic
dependencies" isn't a solution here either.   Metal hacking configure.*
is however one.


//Spider

-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]