Re: USE flags mumbling

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02-07-10 00:16, Tom Rini wrote:
> Koen Kooi wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 01-07-10 18:24, Graeme Gregory wrote:
>>> We already have BBCLASSEXTENDS which modifies ${PN} of a package and
>>> can use overrides to change behaviors of recipes.
>>>
>>> Maybe USE flags could be implemented in a similar fashing.
>>>
>>> DISTRO_USE = "nossl nox11"
>>>
>>> EXTRA_OECONF_append_use-nossl = "--disable-ssl"
>>>
>>> ${PN} of the recipe becomes XXXX-nossl
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Just that USE flags shouldn't be used if seperate recipes can solve it
>> as well.
> 
> If I may, I'd like to articulate what I believe to be the technical
> argument behind this statement.
> 
> One of the issues with some form of USE flags, and I believe this is one
> of the big ones for Angstrom as well as any other public feed publishing
> distribution is that having a single recipe that does different things
> based on variables makes maintaining their feed (and allowing users to
> publish their own compatible feeds) a nightmare.

That's not what I'm getting at. If 2 *packages* can safely co-exist in
the feeds *and* and image can choose which it wants to install USE flags
artificially limit the choice.
Example: opkg, nopkg-nopgp

This extends to things like "shadow or tinylogin?" as well.

regards,

Koen

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFMLYzLMkyGM64RGpERAqz5AJ0WYMyg9VkgKfHEz22ZWkXcX8ik0ACfdJir
AzXGjeywXg5XnbtRIqXIEhI=
=8aWE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----