| 1 |
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 06/21/2012 11:12 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:32:34 +0100 |
| 4 |
>> David Leverton <levertond@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> Michał Górny wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>> But in the current form, the spec doesn't allow passing |
| 8 |
>>>> IUSE_RUNTIME flags to has_version() so we're on the safe side :P. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> True. Do we want to keep it that restrictive? |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> I've added that to the spec but I'm not sure if we're not going too far |
| 13 |
>> with this. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Now I'm seriously seeing downside of this solution and starting |
| 16 |
>> thinking about making them auto-enabled when deps are satisfied. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> The funny part is that this could recurse, if you call has_version |
| 19 |
> a[a-runtime-flag], which depends on b[b-runtime-flag], which depends on |
| 20 |
> c[c-runtime-flag] and so on... |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I suspect that we'd be better off with a less restrictive spec, and |
| 23 |
> without this "auto-enabled" thing. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I deleted autouse in like 2006, please don't bring it back ;p |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-A |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> -- |
| 30 |
> Thanks, |
| 31 |
> Zac |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> |
Archives