Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: ferringb@×××××.com
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH eutils] Introduce has_iuse() for IUSE checks.
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:22:32
Message-Id: 20110915092337.362ec80e@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH eutils] Introduce has_iuse() for IUSE checks. by Brian Harring
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:32:37 -0700
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:15:59AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 11:19:35 -0400 > > Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: > > > however, why wont this work sanely in src_* or pkg_* funcs ? the > > > env there is the one constructed by the PM which includes the > > > merged IUSE values. > > > > It's not. We deliberately don't specify that the PM passes fixed up > > values for IUSE, DEPEND etc back into the ebuild, since Portage's > > behaviour for global variables has varied considerably over the > > years. > > That's not varied; the implementation for eclass/ebuild stacking has > been pretty consistant for phase funcs. > > Either way, candidate for eapi5 if it's worth ensuring it's > accessible to the phases...
Is that actually useful? Isn't that just a waste of time serializing all that data back, of which most isn't suitable for non-specialized parsing? If we really need to access ${IUSE}, I think we should go for something IUSE-specific. -- Best regards, Michał Górny


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature