| 1 |
On 12 August 2015 at 16:21, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Can't we all (except for the usual suspect) just agree that REQUIRED_USE |
| 4 |
> was a mistake, and go back to pkg_pretend? The only justification for |
| 5 |
> REQUIRED_USE was that it could allegedly be used in an automated |
| 6 |
> fashion, and this hasn't happened. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I think such a proposal needs to be tested on places where it is used |
| 10 |
heavily, for instance, python modules where REQUIRED_USE is employed |
| 11 |
extensively, which could mean a significant number of pkg_pretend |
| 12 |
phases executing, which *could* be more expensive than the equivalent |
| 13 |
static dependency code. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
( And it could be required that python eclass consumers would all have |
| 16 |
to provide a pkg_pretend() even if they didn't need required_use |
| 17 |
behaviour ) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I'm not saying it *is*, but a side by side comparison of real-world |
| 20 |
problems there would be important. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
( Maybe the complex dependency resolver stuff is much slower, hard to tell ) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Kent |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |
Archives