On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 10:56:57PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 20 October 2005 10:49 pm, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> > 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!
> 
> it will actually
> 
> if you build gcc w/out C++ support that means no libstdc++
> 
> no libstdc++ means python on most boxes is now broken
> 
> no python means no emerge
> 
> how exactly are you going to re-emerge gcc then ?  oh, you cant ...
> -mike

It could be handled the same way busybox handles USE=make-symlinks:
simply abort unless the user makes it really clear via an extra variable
that he knows what he's doing. A nocxx flag isn't necessary to protect
users.

: >>> Test phase [not enabled]: sys-apps/busybox-1.01
:
: >>> Install busybox-1.01 into /var/tmp/portage/busybox-1.01/image/ category sys-apps
:  * setting USE=make-symlinks and emerging to / is very dangerous.
:  * it WILL overwrite lots of system programs like: ls bash awk grep (bug 60805 for full list).
:  * If you are creating a binary only and not merging this is probably ok.
:  * set env VERY_BRAVE_OR_VERY_DUMB=yes if this is realy what you want.
:
: !!! ERROR: sys-apps/busybox-1.01 failed.
: !!! Function src_install, Line 176, Exitcode 0
: !!! silly options will destroy your system
: !!! If you need support, post the topmost build error, NOT this status message.