| 1 |
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 05:02:34 +0200 |
| 2 |
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > IUSE_IMPLICIT="build debug" |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Are people wanting to make those implicit? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> IMHO they shouldn't be implicit. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I should probably explain the rationale behind those two... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Back in the day, various eclasses would do 'if use build' and 'if use |
| 12 |
debug' and the like, and at one point eutils had a DEPEND="!build? |
| 13 |
( patch )" in there. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I *think* all the major offenders there are gone now. On the other |
| 16 |
hand, if they're not, and IUSE_IMPLICIT doesn't include those, it means |
| 17 |
EAPI 3 won't be usable with certain fairly common eclasses. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Historically, IUSE was purely a visual thing, and didn't affect package |
| 20 |
manager behaviour. With the introduction of the newuse stuff, and |
| 21 |
later, use dependencies, that slowly stopped being true, and IUSE |
| 22 |
started to matter a lot more. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> (And maybe IUSE_IMPLICIT shouldn't be supported at all.) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Personally I hate the whole implicit thing, and would rather everyone |
| 27 |
stuck absolutely everything in IUSE. But a majority of developers |
| 28 |
thought otherwise. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
There were also calls for some fancy prefix use flags to go in |
| 31 |
IUSE_IMPLICIT at some point. Alas, it doesn't look like something we |
| 32 |
could have excluded from the specification entirely... |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives