| 1 |
David Leverton wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 20 September 2008 18:15:27 Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I can think of checks like: |
| 4 |
>> - foo is a dep/rdep of bar |
| 5 |
>> - foo has a "plugin like" architecture |
| 6 |
>> - bar will "work" with minimal foo |
| 7 |
>> - most people will expect some features in bar that come with foo's |
| 8 |
>> plugins |
| 9 |
>> - we might want to display warnings for the most useful features |
| 10 |
>> - having useflags in bar for each of foo's useflags doesn't seem wise |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> If you mean something like |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> built_with_use cat/foo coolfeature || ewarn "bar will be more useful if |
| 15 |
> you rebuild cat/foo with USE=coolfeature" |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> then you can use |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> has_version 'cat/foo[coolfeature]' || ... |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> instead. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Which is much better because it's handled directly with the PM and not |
| 24 |
eutils going looking in vdb by hand, right. In that case we should |
| 25 |
really encourage this and make built_with_use die or at least emit a qa |
| 26 |
warning? The only downside is that use deps don't support the --missing |
| 27 |
stuff and we'll see how big problem this turns out to be in practice... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Caster |
Archives