On Monday 19 December 2005 10:06, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> No. A USE flag can break the "system" target but not break beyond that
> point. This means a USE flag may be safe during the creation of a
> stage4 tarball but not during a stage3 tarball. Why? Because during
> the creation of stages 1 though 3 we only have a limited set of packages
> and even those packages are compiled and configured in minimal ways.
> Until we reach the "system" target we do not have a guaranteed working
> complete system to work with.
What legal USE flag, other than perhaps build/bootstrap, can break a stage3
(system) build?
If catalyst supports custom use flags via a profile, why not via make.conf?
Is there an underlying difference between the way use flags are calculated
depending on their presence in the profile versus make.conf?
My primary motivation for wanting to be able to use USE flags in the lower
stages is to shorten the build time and reduce bloat, by using USE flags
that are perfectly valid for the toolchain packages. I am building for
servers, not desktops, and would rather avoid the extra step (stage3 ->
stage4). Catalyst would be an extremely useful tool for me if it were not
for what seem to be arbitrary limitations. All invalid USE flags are
thrown out by bootstrap.sh, any standard USE flags should be available when
emerging system, if they are not something is wrong with portage...
It is much simpler in my mind to add USE="nptl -pam -nls" to make.conf than
to create custom profiles, dick around with rsync-excludes to prevent them
from being deleted when I sync, having to port them over to every new
release, etc...
> Except for uclibc... or libc on *BSD... or Mac OS... or Solaris...
> remember that "Gentoo" is more than just Linux/glibc.
Which is kind of why the order of the bootstrap probably needs to be handled
by the profile, not portage. I would be willing to bet that the bootstrap
process for every O/S supported by gentoo does, in fact, have to be done in
a very specific order. Probably off-topic for this list, but there really
should be something along the lines of a toolchain set of packages in the
profiles, similar to the method of using *category/package. Probably in
over my head here...
Anyhow, I won't bug you guys about it any more. I'm sure you are probably
getting a little tweaked about my whining when you are trying to get a
release out :)
pgplpJ63WEQej.pgp
Description: PGP signature
|
