1 |
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 03:29:17 -0700 |
2 |
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:02:44AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: |
5 |
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:54:39 -0700 |
6 |
> > Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 08:58:07PM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: |
9 |
> > > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:47:33 -0400 |
10 |
> > > > Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
11 |
> > > > |
12 |
> > > > > Based on the above I do expect the reference implementation |
13 |
> > > > > would also need to change. I expect, for instance, that the |
14 |
> > > > > PM's metadata-handling would need to occur as normal even |
15 |
> > > > > though none of the package's phase functions would run, that |
16 |
> > > > > is, *DEPEND (realistically RDEPEND as that should be the only |
17 |
> > > > > one affected here, maybe PDEPEND too) and USE/PKGUSE would |
18 |
> > > > > get updated. Since portage would not be re-emerging the |
19 |
> > > > > package from the tree the original ebuild would remain. |
20 |
> > > > |
21 |
> > > > Yes, unless I'm missing something that's the intent. I will |
22 |
> > > > re-read and update the GLEP a bit sometime this week. |
23 |
> > > |
24 |
> > > There's a fairly strong user interaction component here, along w/ |
25 |
> > > potential nastyness for ebuilds (the proposal assume that a flag |
26 |
> > > will be toggable in all cases within an ebuild if IUSE_RUNTIME |
27 |
> > > specified; I guarantee instances where that fails can be found in |
28 |
> > > the tree if a basic audit was done). Additionally, this *is* |
29 |
> > > useless if it's done in a form the UI an't display/handle; Ciaran |
30 |
> > > may bitch about REQUIRED_USE's UI (which I knew going in was |
31 |
> > > going to be problematic, just to be clear), but he's right on |
32 |
> > > that front. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> ^^^ This point still needs addressing. |
35 |
|
36 |
IUSE_RUNTIME is optional for PMs, why does the UI matter at all ? |
37 |
Also, the proposal doesn't assume flags are toggable at will, it assumes |
38 |
they are useflags and obey the same rules. |
39 |
|
40 |
> > > Additionally, this needs to be thought out how it'll interact |
41 |
> > > with eclasses; what stacking, etc. It doesn't cover the basics |
42 |
> > > there to say the least. |
43 |
> > |
44 |
> > The proposal didn't cover eclasses at all. Is there a need to do so |
45 |
> > or are we chasing some kind of perfection based on filling all |
46 |
> > unused slots? |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Eclass stacking here matters; if it's stacked, it means ebuilds have |
49 |
> to use out of bound (ie, other vars) to tell the eclass when it |
50 |
> shouldn't mark a flag as runtime toggable. If it's not stacked by |
51 |
> the pm, then they have to manually stack; that differs from the norm |
52 |
> and makes it easier to screwup; however; does allow for them to |
53 |
> filter, albeit a slight pain in the ass doing so. |
54 |
> |
55 |
> There's a choice there, and the answer matters, so yes, you should |
56 |
> actually have a complete glep before trying to shove it up to the |
57 |
> council and extract a vote out of them. Lest the intention is to |
58 |
> just have them kick it back to the curb... |
59 |
|
60 |
It can't be stacked and it's not wise to do so; it is a simple bash |
61 |
variable like tons of others in eclasses: |
62 |
""" |
63 |
Package managers not implementing this GLEP will consider |
64 |
the ``IUSE_RUNTIME`` variable as an irrelevant bash variable |
65 |
""" |
66 |
""" |
67 |
2. introduce additional ``IUSE_RUNTIME`` variable listing names of USE |
68 |
flags related to optional runtime dependencies (without prefixes |
69 |
related to IUSE defaults). |
70 |
""" |
71 |
|
72 |
Treating bash variables as bash variables is rather the norm, |
73 |
stacking is the exception. As I understand it, your only objection here |
74 |
is that you want to see written 'IUSE_RUNTIME gets no special treatment' |
75 |
in the proposal ? |
76 |
|
77 |
A. |