On Friday 21 October 2005 02:44 am, Harald van Dijk wrote: > 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 ... > > 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.
no, because then it makes it a pita for the people who legitimately use nocxx -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
