El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 19:07 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: > On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:30:55 +0200 > Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 18:09 +0200, hasufell escribió: > > > It breaks the useflag philosophy, IMO. > > > > > > Useflags were meant as switches. You can turn things on and off. > > > Pulling in optional dependencies via useflags does not allow the > > > user to turn something off when he sets USE="-foo" emerge fuqbar. > > > That should only be valid for virtuals or meta-packages. And that's > > > what those are for. > > > > > > > Maybe we could split them from RDEPEND to some kind of EXTRA_DEPEND > > (or something else) to fit this purpose. > > There was already a lot of discussion about this and the community > didn't care enough to agree on one of the proposed solutions. You're > just reinventing one of them, with a new variable name and the same > disadvantages. >
Do you have a link to that old thread? Because current situation of relying on elog messages also has disadvantages
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
