| 1 |
2010-10-25 16:03:01 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:56:18 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > 2010-10-25 15:42:00 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): |
| 5 |
> > > On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:24:23 +0200 |
| 6 |
> > > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > > 1. Support for "." characters in names of USE flags |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > If you do this, you'll have to either convert everything using |
| 10 |
> > > Python ABIs to EAPI 4 immediately, or have two sets of flag names. |
| 11 |
> > > Won't users get confused if they have to set both python_abis_3_2 |
| 12 |
> > > (for EAPI < 4 packages) and python_abis_3.2 (for EAPI 4 packages)? |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > There won't be any such USE flags for EAPI <4. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Ok, that answers that objection. In that case I'd not be opposed to . |
| 17 |
> being allowed *provided*: |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> - Portage explicitly enforces it not being allowed anywhere else, |
| 20 |
> including in profiles that aren't marked as eapi 4 |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Portage already allows some characters in some places in EAPI="0" regardless of PMS :) . |
| 23 |
Anyway I don't care. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> - The . isn't legal as the first character in a flag name. (Paludis has |
| 26 |
> been using [.foo=bar] and the like in user eapi contexts to allow |
| 27 |
> fancy queries on metadata. It would be a shame to have to change |
| 28 |
> that syntax just for some hypothetical possible use of . in use flag |
| 29 |
> names that looks really really weird anyway.) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
No objection. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis |
Archives