2015-05-03 13:51 GMT+03:00 Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net>: > What about a somewhat more generic flag such as newcode? Like the bindist > or minimal flags, this could be global, but with local descriptions very > strongly recommended. Similarly, like minimal, setting it globally would > be strongly discouraged. > > In this case, the newcode local description would be something like: > > C++14 related: gcc doesn't support yet, requires clang > > ... with an appropriate use-conditional dep. > > The newcode flag would however be generic enough that it could be reused > for C++17, etc, as well, and could obviously be phased out for any > particular package once its specific newcode dependencies are met in > stable -- in this case, when a supporting gcc stabilizes. >
Nice idea, thanks! There are a couple of corner cases though. > newcode would even be generic enough to be used for say qt6 when the time > comes, if it turns out to be stuck in the qt overlay for quite some time, > as was qt5, for the longest time, What if a package would support (optional) builds with C++17-related features and (optional) builds with say Qt6, and these could be toggled independently? Does that imply having something like newcode_cpp17 and newcode_qt4 on per-package basis? > and the good bit is, generic meaning, > that USE=newcode requires a dep that's still generally problematic or > might be considered excessive to get, for optional functionality that may > or may not be considered worth it, should be pretty obvious. > Does that imply that merely pulling clang for builds is not a newcode-concern then, and, back to the original topic, in case of leechcraft C++14 can be enabled unconditionally, again with unconditional pulling of clang? That's probably a way to go, but feels like not Gentoo-way enough (just removing an option). > Making that meaning even more obvious would be the fact that the flag > would likely be packageuse-masked for many users for much of the the > time. That could for instance allow packages using it in-tree, before > the dep it pulls in is itself in-tree, while still making it possible to > unmask, for users who either already have the required overlay active, or > who don't have it active ATM, but are willing to activate it to get the > features it toggles. > Depending on the answer to the previous question, if all the deps are in-tree, then there is no need in masking the useflag. It could be unmasked on the per-package basis again, I guess? Then there is a question of the default (globally unmasked and per-package masks vs globally masked and per-package unmasks), but that's a relatively minor one. -- Georg Rudoy
