| 1 |
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 19:38:03 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ralph Sennhauser <sera@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Is there anything beside the IMPLICIT_IUSE left from the original EAPI |
| 4 |
> 3 proposal which didn't made it into either EAPI 3 or 4 but would be |
| 5 |
> required? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Yeah. IMPLICIT_IUSE needs the whole redefinition of IUSE_EFFECTIVE etc |
| 8 |
to make sense. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Historically IUSE was purely for visual effect. That went out of the |
| 11 |
window when we got USE dependencies, but for various reasons the |
| 12 |
opportunity to make IUSE correct enough for USE dependencies to work |
| 13 |
was missed. Right now use dependency defaults are moderately broken, |
| 14 |
since their wording depended upon a feature that got dropped. We can't |
| 15 |
start injecting things into IUSE until we have a consistent definition |
| 16 |
of IUSE_EFFECTIVE. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives