| 1 |
On Tue, 1 May 2012 00:40:32 +0200 |
| 2 |
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I'm against this one in a "quick" EAPI, unless you can get a |
| 4 |
> > reference implementation and extensive testing on possible use |
| 5 |
> > scenarios done in time. I strongly suspect this will end up having |
| 6 |
> > the problems that REQUIRED_USE had when it was shoved in at the |
| 7 |
> > last minute without anyone having properly tried it out... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I cannot say much myself about the complexity of the reference |
| 10 |
> implementation, however the concept itself is imho pretty |
| 11 |
> straightforward and (in particular) not intrusive. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Can you enumerate every possible way the files will be used, both in |
| 14 |
terms of syntax and intended effect? Can you provide assurances that it |
| 15 |
can't also be (ab)used to do other things not on your list? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Can you demonstrate that introducing this in an EAPI won't require |
| 18 |
upping profile EAPIs, and that users whose package mangler doesn't do |
| 19 |
EAPI 5 won't run into problems with it? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The interaction of the various use related profile things is already |
| 22 |
very complicated and messy. We still haven't decided what happens when |
| 23 |
use dependencies become allowed in profiles, and we're keeping profile |
| 24 |
EAPIs locked below 2 so we don't have to figure it out. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives