| 1 |
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 09:10 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:43:11 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 02:14 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev escribió: |
| 5 |
> > > Revised to use a separate variable for the name of the flag instead |
| 6 |
> > > of reading IUSE, as suggested by Ciaran McCreesh. As a result of |
| 7 |
> > > this change, vala.eclass now defaults to assuming that vala support |
| 8 |
> > > is optional (which is the case in an overwhelming majority of |
| 9 |
> > > ebuilds that would want to use this eclass). |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Sorry but, why even in_iuse function from eutils.eclass cannot be |
| 12 |
> > used? If that is really not allowed, why we have that function in |
| 13 |
> > eutils.eclass? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> We had this discussion when the function was introduced. It's supposed |
| 16 |
> to be used for cosmetic things only. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
What are "cosmetics" things? Also, what do you mean by "It's supposed"? |
| 20 |
Who should decide what "is supposed" and what not? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
From past discussions I remember somebody remembered me that, when you |
| 23 |
talk here, you are simply talking as another one subscribed here, like |
| 24 |
me and others, you don't represent PMS team and have no special rule to |
| 25 |
forbid us what to do, that is the reason why I asked for more opinions |
| 26 |
about how to handle this situation in the tree and why I demanded |
| 27 |
Alexandre to wait a bit before commiting second way because that way |
| 28 |
simply adds more complication with no benefit apart of address your |
| 29 |
complaints even leaving the rest of the tree (ebuilds/eclasses already |
| 30 |
using it) unchanged. |
Archives