On Thursday 01 February 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 16:18:22 -0500 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | On Thursday 01 February 2007, Alec Warner wrote: > | > Because then you get fun things like package.provided where people > | > inject a randomly configured package that fails PM tests (aka > | > built_with_use). You'd have to have some sort of tautology that > | > says provided packages (and crazyconfig packages) always pass any > | > checks (such as built_with_use, but could be other checks as well) > | > and then just fail during build if they don't. > | > | leave it as an exercise for the user to make sure they set > | package.use to match their .config > > I'm all for letting users do stupid things if they really want, but > isn't this like sticking up a deliberately wonky staircase with no > handrails over an open vat of evil super villain acid with a sign > saying "free cookies" at the top?
i do like cookies, but i dont really think this is a big deal generating your own .config isnt exactly a trivial thing, so if you're going through all the effort of doing so, then it isnt unreasonable to expect the person to understand the system USE=savedconfig enables only the searching of the .config; if it doesnt exist the process is skipped -mike
pgpkl4yYp6D3Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
