| 1 |
On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 06:46:33 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:50:30 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > Are you sure this is defined behaviour? IUSE is a fancy merged |
| 4 |
> > > variable for eclasses, and I don't think we guarantee that the value |
| 5 |
> > > visible to the ebuild at any particular point is the generated value |
| 6 |
> > > used by the package mangler. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > True. I guess there's no way to tell whether a particular IUSE is |
| 9 |
> > defined in the ebuild then? Hrm, I guess we'll need to break API |
| 10 |
> > compat (and a number of ebuilds then) to get rid of this. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> You don't do it by checking IUSE. You do it by having the ebuild define |
| 13 |
> a variable like WANT_MONKEY_SUPPORT. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
it's a crap shoot. as long as Michał's proposed func doesnt attempt to make |
| 16 |
guarantees that don't exist now, i think it's fine. we have ebuilds/eclasses |
| 17 |
that are already using it, so unifying it purely for the [+-] cleanup makes |
| 18 |
sense to me. |
| 19 |
-mike |
Archives