1 |
On 08/24/2018 04:14 PM, Francesco Riosa wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> Il 24/08/18 19:08, Mike Gilbert ha scritto: |
4 |
>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:45 AM Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:27:01 -0400 |
6 |
>>> Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>>> If you want to define behavior that can be relied upon in ebuilds, it |
9 |
>>>> should be specified in PMS. PMS does not define any meaning for the |
10 |
>>>> "test" USE flag. |
11 |
>>> We should eschew idealism about how the world *should* behave, and avoid |
12 |
>>> making portage a steaming garbage heap in order to comply with a |
13 |
>>> terrible PMS specification of a heavily used feature. |
14 |
>> Portage still works just fine for most people who would enable |
15 |
>> FEATURES=test. Stop exaggerating. |
16 |
>> |
17 |
> People enabling FEATURES=test on most but not all packages had some |
18 |
> troubles and they need to disable them in both package.{env,use} |
19 |
> I'd like to have a flag to reinstate the previous portage behaviour, but |
20 |
> that's probably too late |
21 |
|
22 |
Would a FEATURES setting that implies RESTRICT="!test? ( test )" for all |
23 |
ebuilds do what you want? |
24 |
-- |
25 |
Thanks, |
26 |
Zac |