From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Q0Thc-0007Bf-H5 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:02:28 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DDEE11C081; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:02:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9D67E0512 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:01:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.24.4] (ip68-4-224-88.oc.oc.cox.net [68.4.224.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 505011B403E for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:01:42 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4D830357.5040704@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 00:01:43 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110305 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.9 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] pax-utils.eclass: elog -> einfo? References: <4D7B68D3.5000409@gentoo.org> <201103171818.21013.vapier@gentoo.org> <4D829BEF.1060006@gentoo.org> <201103180245.16344.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <201103180245.16344.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 7205f2f3bbeda388ed0a917d9bc4740b On 03/17/2011 11:45 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday, March 17, 2011 19:40:31 Zac Medico wrote: >> On 03/17/2011 03:18 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On Thursday, March 17, 2011 17:59:44 Kevin F. Quinn wrote: >>>> I'd suggest doing something like: >>>> >>>> use hardened && elog ... >>>> >>>> There's an argument that it's better to make decisions according to >>>> make.conf settings rather than the host system configuration, not >>>> least to cater for people doing cross-builds. Assuming cross builds >>>> work at all; I've not tried that for a long time. >>> >>> in general, yes. but this would have the unpleasant side effect of >>> having IUSE=hardened show up for all packages that inherit the eclass. >>> >>> also, this code is run at the pkg_* stage, so it's not the normal src >>> host feature detection. and we're talking about minor output behavior. >> >> I don't know the specifics of what PMS says about this, if you put >> hardened in use.force then portage will allow you to use that flag >> without it being in IUSE. > > that would require listing every package that inherits pax-utils in use.force > too right ? doesnt sound scalable. No, because use.force applies to all packages. I guess you were thinking of package.use.force. > my proposal, while certainly not perfect, attempts to take a middle ground > without incurring too much cruft. i think i achieved that while appeasing > most people in practice. > -mike Shrug, I just thought I'd mention it. -- Thanks, Zac