Dnia 2015-04-13, o godz. 06:36:44 Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> napisał(a):
> Kent Fredric posted on Sat, 11 Apr 2015 15:09:38 +0000 as excerpted: > > > On 02:36, Sun, 12/04/2015 Andreas K. Huettel <dilfri...@gentoo.org> > > wrote: > > > > > >>> build - !!internal use only!! DO NOT SET THIS FLAG YOURSELF!, used > >>> for creating build images and the first half of bootstrapping > >>> [make stage1] > >>> > >>> bootstrap - !!internal use only!! DO NOT SET THIS FLAG YOURSELF!, > >>> used during original system bootstrapping [make stage2] > >>> > >>> However, since both are marked for 'internal use only', I don't think > >>> it's a good idea to use them here. So I guess we need a new flag. > >>> Does anyone have suggestions how to name it? > >> > >> Incidentally, if those were all migrated to USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN, the dire > >> warnings wouldn't need to be so visible... > > > > Now if only anyone would remember what these were intended for? > > > > Maybe we're just trying to re-invent the wheel... > > > > And it would be nice if the solution we use doesn't end up being like > > the very warty USE=test flag. > > > > We can make it a first class mechanism without having to tell users > > "don't use this", so why not. > > > > Of course, doing it right may require going through EAPI changes… > > What about "initial-build" for the flag name, and making it part of the > next EAPI, such that PMs know how to handle it without involving the user > having to set it, and indeed, actually ignore the flag (as a masked flag) > in normal operation if the user /does/ set it? How about we stop inventing magical flag names? We have enough mess with USE=test already... -- Best regards, Michał Górny
pgpf6oIOIvCkB.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
