Am Sonntag, 22. Juni 2014, 15:31:43 schrieb Rich Freeman: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 23 June 2014 01:02, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > >> The usual conditional for that is USE=custom-cflags or a similar variant [...] > > The problem with a USE flag here as such is the change this eclass makes > > affects >900 packages in dev-perl/ , and its not easy to casually > > determine which of those packages have any C bits where CFLAGS are even > > meaningful. > > > > Which would mean having >900 packages with a new IUSE value that did > > nothing for a majority of them.
The numbers are even worse; the use flag would be added to ~1400 packages, and it would actually matter for only ~300. > Would it make more sense to move filtering (and thus the flag) to > packages that actually use it, instead of doing it in the eclass? By > the same logic you have >900 packages filtering CFLAGS when many of > them don't even use CFLAGS. Offhand I don't know any way how the eclass could "know" whether a perl package requires C building or not. Any heuristics would be a hack at best. It might even be preferable to manually add some variable to 300 packages in the ebuild (which then makes the eclass add a use-flag custom-cflags). i.e. PERL_CFLAGS_HANDLING=yes inherit perl-module -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
