| 1 |
On 08/12/2015 05:44 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/12/15 22:38, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> I always wondered why pkg_pretend never caught on. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Because, in a way, it triggers at the wrong point of the merge. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> emerge -pv fnurk => dependencies look ok |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> emerge fnurk => pkg_pretend bails out ... eh?! |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> (This would be a little bit confusing, if not actively hostile, and |
| 13 |
> useflags + required_use are a lot more 'natural' to the emerge workflow) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The nice thing about REQUIRED_USE is that it is math expression, and |
| 16 |
math is a sort of universal language. It leads to uniform error |
| 17 |
messages. You can imagine that pkg_pretend messages will tend to be much |
| 18 |
less uniform! |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
>> I to can see the advantage of it over REQUIRED_USE; it would allow the |
| 21 |
>> package maintainer to give specific error messages about why use flag |
| 22 |
>> combinations are invalid for a package. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> And now someone will say "annotations". Sigh. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Well, nothing stops people from using pkg_pretend to create fancy error |
| 27 |
messages now! |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> have fun, |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Patrick |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Thanks, |
| 40 |
Zac |
Archives