1 |
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:56:18 +0200 |
2 |
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> 2010-10-25 15:42:00 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): |
4 |
> > On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:24:23 +0200 |
5 |
> > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > > 1. Support for "." characters in names of USE flags |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > If you do this, you'll have to either convert everything using |
9 |
> > Python ABIs to EAPI 4 immediately, or have two sets of flag names. |
10 |
> > Won't users get confused if they have to set both python_abis_3_2 |
11 |
> > (for EAPI < 4 packages) and python_abis_3.2 (for EAPI 4 packages)? |
12 |
> |
13 |
> There won't be any such USE flags for EAPI <4. |
14 |
|
15 |
Ok, that answers that objection. In that case I'd not be opposed to . |
16 |
being allowed *provided*: |
17 |
|
18 |
- Portage explicitly enforces it not being allowed anywhere else, |
19 |
including in profiles that aren't marked as eapi 4 |
20 |
|
21 |
- The . isn't legal as the first character in a flag name. (Paludis has |
22 |
been using [.foo=bar] and the like in user eapi contexts to allow |
23 |
fancy queries on metadata. It would be a shame to have to change |
24 |
that syntax just for some hypothetical possible use of . in use flag |
25 |
names that looks really really weird anyway.) |
26 |
|
27 |
> I'm planning to use e.g. REQUIRED_USE, which isn't available in EAPI <4. |
28 |
|
29 |
Or in EAPI 4 for that matter, going by the current state of GLEPs and |
30 |
PMS... |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Ciaran McCreesh |