On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:33:44 +0300
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote:

> Bo Ørsted Andresen kirjoitti:
> > On Monday 22 September 2008 22:25:20 Petteri Räty wrote:
> >>> If you mean something like
> >>>
> >>>     built_with_use cat/foo coolfeature || ewarn "bar will be more
> >>> useful if you rebuild cat/foo with USE=coolfeature" 
> >>>
> >>> then you can use
> >>>
> >>>     has_version 'cat/foo[coolfeature]' || ...
> >>>
> >>> instead.
> >> What does this report if cat/foo does not have coolfeature use
> >> flag in some version? Meaning can this support cases which need
> >> --missing true.
> > 
> > False. If for instance coolfeature was made optional in >=pv you
> > can use logic like:
> > 
> > if has_version '>=cat/foo-pv' && ! has_version
> > 'cat/foo[coolfeature]'; then ewarn '...'
> > fi
> > 
> 
> I think this should cover all the current functionality with 
> built_with_use. 

This is just an ugly hack. Think about a package that has coolfeature
useflag removed and enabled by default for a couple of releases because
it wouldn't build without it and once upstream sorted out everything
the useflag is coming back. Missing useflags that are assumed to be
enabled have nothing to do with the package version being greater than
a given number.

I would *really* prefer having big warnings when using built_with_use
in EAPI 2; that way we can see how things are in practice and then
maybe make built_with_use die for a later eapi or once all the tree is
converted to eapi 2 remove it.

Alexis.