On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 00:22:50 -0700, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> forcing cxx on via package.mask for gcc > sys-devel/gcc[-cxx] If i want to build a cxx-free system, am i supposed to add "sys-devel/gcc[-cxx]" to its package.unmask? If so, what will prevent Portage upgrading to some package.masked 4.2_alpha version? After all, that's what a depatom interpretation would imply. Or am i supposed to carefully unmask "=sys-devel/gcc-4.1*[-cxx]" only, and pray for not overlooking the 4.2 upgrade when it comes (since it would bring cxx back in), and that there won't ever be a gcc-4.1.99-r42 dev's playground? Or am i supposed to put "-sys-devel/gcc[-cxx]" in some profile overriding file? But then, when the tree mask is changed to "sys-devel/gcc[-cxx,-fortran]", my diff rule will suddenly be lost (this method of text lines overriding is okay in the context of official profiles, where coherent changesets can be done at once, but in user's config files, it's hell to maintain). In short, i hope that either i have missed something about your proposal, or that it's not what will be used to drop the "nofoobar" flags and that this will wait for some more userfriendly system, like the "set defaults in IUSE" one that has been mentionned in the initial post. -- TGL. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
