From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from static.26.116.47.78.clients.your-server.de ([78.47.116.26] helo=phalanx.drlauer-research.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OUSOs-0000gb-UJ for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:38:31 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.2] (e180160232.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.180.160.232]) by phalanx.drlauer-research.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F894584111 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2010 00:43:59 +0200 (CEST) From: Michael 'Mickey' Lauer To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org In-Reply-To: <1278023342.4507.8.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> References: <20100701172428.3b2ac88e@xora-desktop.xora.org.uk> <4C2D13AE.9030903@mentor.com> <1278023342.4507.8.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> Organization: Vanille-Media Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:33:46 +0200 Message-ID: <1278023626.12473.22.camel@saphir> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 78.47.116.26 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mickey@vanille-media.de X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: USE flags mumbling X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 22:38:32 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Am Donnerstag, den 01.07.2010, 23:29 +0100 schrieb Phil Blundell: > On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 15:16 -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > 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. > > It's only a nightmare if the flags in question are user-frobbable. If > they are all nailed down in the DISTRO configuration (which > DISTRO_FEATURES certainly ought to be), and those folks who want to > build compatible binaries just leave them alone, then there oughtn't to > be any real problem. To that extent it doesn't really seem any > different to the choice of compiler or tuning flags or glibc version or > any of the other ways in which you can already produce incompatible > binaries by flipping the wrong switches. Agreed. I think we should be more open to this concept. At least for packages with optional (but "infecting") X11 support -- such as EFL -- I plan to use such a mechanism soon. -- :M: