| 1 |
Note I inadvertantly cross posted, I was intending on cc'ing |
| 2 |
council@g.o. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
As such one final cc to that ml to end this subthread while pulling |
| 5 |
this back to -dev. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:16:22PM +1300, Alistair Bush wrote: |
| 9 |
> > Hola all- |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Comments desired; assuming no significant blowback, I'll be pushing |
| 12 |
> > this to the council level since eapi4 is annoying feature locked right |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I think this solution is far better, until someone smarter than me tells me |
| 15 |
> otherwise. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Don't know whether I like the VALID_USE var name, so please at least think |
| 18 |
> about something a little better if you can ;). ( I like green, but not too |
| 19 |
> green if you know what I mean ) |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Will we still have to define the use flags in IUSE? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Yes, although if folks have a better proposal that incorporates |
| 24 |
VALID_USE into IUSE I'm definitely open to it- the original proposal |
| 25 |
for VALID_USE tried to inline it into IUSE, but it got ugly (hence it |
| 26 |
mutating it this form). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The problem w/ trying to reuse IUSE is the following (sorry, I like |
| 29 |
lists of assertions)- |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
*) IUSE currently serves as a list of valid USE flags, just that. No |
| 32 |
repeat specification of a flag (which means the dev in question is |
| 33 |
unlikely to typo a flag). |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
*) having a single specified list of valid use flags is the basis for |
| 36 |
doing validation of use flags used in all other metadata. In other |
| 37 |
words, that list of valid use flags *really* needs to go out of it's |
| 38 |
way to make human error hard. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
*) VALID_USE is a set of assertions on the allowed state of USE; IUSE |
| 41 |
is just a list of flags. Intermixing the two in a way that is still |
| 42 |
readable is really ugly |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
*) given a library that has optional perl and python bindings |
| 45 |
(which can be toggled freely, they're standalone flags) I've nfc how |
| 46 |
one would sanely specify that w/in IUSE while adding VALID_USE |
| 47 |
semantics. Possibly, you could include use conditionals into IUSE, |
| 48 |
and treat the () contents as assertions- but that makes adding xor in |
| 49 |
hard, is rather ugly/hard on the eyes, and violates the DRY (Don't |
| 50 |
Repeat Yourself) principle from above. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Definitely open to counterproposals that address those |
| 53 |
concerns however... |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
> I'm guessing we can't use IUSE to store this information because of the whole |
| 57 |
> glep-55 thing. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
glep-55 is unrelated to this as far as I can tell- if you think |
| 60 |
otherwise please clarify. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Thanks |
| 63 |
~harring |
Archives