Apparently, though unproven, at 09:58 on Friday 29 October 2010, Fatih Tümen did opine thusly:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 21:21, Neil Bothwick <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:11:42 +0300, Fatih Tümen wrote: > >> I agree putting -hal is not a good idea unless you dare to break the > >> packages that need hal. But I think there is a third option here > > > > Packages that need hal won't have a hal use flag. > > True, not every package that needs hal has hal use flag. I should have > made clear that my implication was those which have (optional) > dependency on hal && (thus) has hal flag. For packages that need hal > it doesn't matter whether you have -hal in your make.conf anyway, does > it? Correct. Something that requires hal will (should?) have it as an unconditional DEPEND. USE is only for optional features. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
