On Tue, 1 May 2012 00:40:32 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote:
> > I'm against this one in a "quick" EAPI, unless you can get a
> > reference implementation and extensive testing on possible use
> > scenarios done in time. I strongly suspect this will end up having
> > the problems that REQUIRED_USE had when it was shoved in at the
> > last minute without anyone having properly tried it out...
> 
> I cannot say much myself about the complexity of the reference
> implementation, however the concept itself is imho pretty
> straightforward and (in particular) not intrusive.

Can you enumerate every possible way the files will be used, both in
terms of syntax and intended effect? Can you provide assurances that it
can't also be (ab)used to do other things not on your list?

Can you demonstrate that introducing this in an EAPI won't require
upping profile EAPIs, and that users whose package mangler doesn't do
EAPI 5 won't run into problems with it?

The interaction of the various use related profile things is already
very complicated and messy. We still haven't decided what happens when
use dependencies become allowed in profiles, and we're keeping profile
EAPIs locked below 2 so we don't have to figure it out.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh