On 10/23/2011 04:57 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuomi...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> If you only wanted to remove these files, you are free to use
>> INSTALL_MASK locally instead of downgrading the quality of tree.
>
> How is this a quality issue? Why do we have a static-libs USE flag is
> packages can't use it to determine whether the package installs static
> libs?
>
> It seems like this is only a "quality" issue in some aesthetic sense
> of the word. From an end-user point of view not installing the files
> or not building them are the same thing, unless you're talking about
> CPU time and tmp space usage. Now, if the time to build those files
> was actually significant then I could see an argument here, although
> you haven't actually proposed an alternative that addresses this.
Yes, I'm talking about CPU time. That's the whole point of
USE=static-libs as per description:
global use flags (searching: static-libs)
************************************************************
[- ] static-libs - Build static libraries
^^^^^
Talks of building them, as it should. And as _a result_ it won't install
them.
The flag would be useless in favour of INSTALL_MASK if it were only for
preventing the installation.
> This doesn't really impact me much personally, but it just seems like
> we nitpick stuff like this way too much when the goal should be things
> that work. By all means improve on things, but we shouldn't just be
> reverting them.
cdparanoia is very near top on my list on this clean up, and the only
reason why I haven't fixed it yet has been the pre-knowledge of the
crappy build system it has after spending so much time with it already
