Re: [gentoo-dev] vala.eclass: change vala_src_prepare behavior when USE=-vala

[Pacho Ramos]

El vie, 21-09-2012 a las 21:01 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 14:23 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > On 20/09/12 02:12 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
> > > wrote:
> > >> El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 10:14 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
> > >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
> > >>>
> > >>> On 20/09/12 09:52 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > >>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:13:40 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> > >>>> <axs@g.o> wrote:
> > >>>>> PMS may not need to be fixed, just the spec
> > >>>>
> > >>>> PMS is the spec, and it doesn't need fixing, since it
> > >>>> accurately reflects the situation we're dealing with.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Sorry, I misread PMS as PMs (portage, paludis, etc).
> > >>>
> > >>> And, for support to be official for ebuilds or eclasses to
> > >>> query IUSE (or other globals) within phase functions, then the
> > >>> 'spec' (PMS) is probably all that needs to be 'fixed'.  Right?
> > >>>
> > >>> So, in EAPI=6, we propose something that'll make it official
> > >>> (ie a querying function; or ensure that PMs can provide these
> > >>> variables along with their proper 'effective' values, or their
> > >>> in-ebuild 'explicit' values, or whatever it is we want to say
> > >>> can be relied upon, to the environment).
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> The problem of waiting for eapi6 to specify CURRENT behavior is
> > >> that we don't know how much time will need to wait until it's
> > >> approved (as I think eapi5 cannot include this "extra" function
> > >> as was approved some hours ago). Other option would be to fast
> > >> release some kind of eapi5.1 adding this... but, again, I think
> > >> we are discussing about something that could be resolved as
> > >> simply as specifying current behavior for all existing eapis (as
> > >> we are in fact doing in the tree) and rely on new eapis for
> > >> future hypothetical changes on it.
> > >
> > > The key question is: How would you formally describe the current
> > > behavior?
> > >
> > > I think someone already noted it's not reliable behavior in all
> > > places.
> > >
> >
> > I think we'd need an audit of what current behaviour is and then
> > define based on that.  Possibly removing cases where the 'expected'
> > behaviour isn't occurring (ie, bugs that just aren't being caught).
> >
> > I'm biased, so to me just auditing what portage does would be good
> > enough. :D  But probably the other PMs should be audited to before
> > 'official' behaviour should be described for PMS.
> >
>
> Will ask to portage people then to know what is current behavior

Here it's:
http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o/msg02830.html