| 1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 4 Mar 2015, Robin H Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 10:12:07PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 4 |
>> However, it turned out that some 10 packages are using the bindist |
| 5 |
>> flag only in REQUIRED_USE but nowhere else [2] (with foo being some |
| 6 |
>> feature flag): |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> IUSE="bindist foo" |
| 9 |
>> REQUIRED_USE="bindist? ( !foo )" |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> IMHO, the bindist USE flag is redundant in these cases. So we |
| 12 |
>> should get rid of the REQUIRED_USE and add a restriction instead: |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> IUSE="foo" |
| 15 |
>> RESTRICT="foo? ( bindist )" |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> This covers the case where it's not used anywhere else. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> 1. What about the cases where it IS used somewhere else? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Obviously, if the bindist flag is used directly to disable some |
| 22 |
feature during the build, then we cannot remove it from IUSE. In these |
| 23 |
cases, ebuilds would need to do: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
RESTRICT="!bindist? ( bindist )" |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
One can discuss if using a feature flag instead and inverting the |
| 28 |
logic would make more sense there. For example, as pointed out |
| 29 |
in the thread referred to by floppym, www-client/chromium could |
| 30 |
"use_enable h264" instead of "use_enable !bindist h264" (it's done |
| 31 |
differently in the ebuild, but use_enable better explains the idea). |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> 2. If you do USE='bindist foo', does portage still give a nice warning |
| 34 |
> that they are mutually incompatible (I thought this is what the |
| 35 |
> REQUIRED_USE was added for). |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Portage/quickpkg will output a short warning if the ebuild has |
| 38 |
RESTRICT="foo? ( bindist )" and you build a binary package with |
| 39 |
USE=foo. Besides, ebuild authors could put a more explicit warning |
| 40 |
into pkg_pretend(). |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> I'm wondering if we should just be really explicit and do: |
| 43 |
> IUSE="bindist foo" |
| 44 |
> REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( bindist foo )" |
| 45 |
> RESTRICT="foo? ( bindist )" |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
This would work (with ?? instead of ^^ in REQUIRED_USE though, |
| 48 |
otherwise it would fail with USE="-bindist -foo"), but the two flags |
| 49 |
would be redundant with each other. And IMHO we shouldn't use |
| 50 |
REQUIRED_USE for such a purpose, since we have RESTRICT for this. |
| 51 |
Also the above cannot be used for packages where binary distribution |
| 52 |
is unconditionally forbidden. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Finally, in all these examples the bindist USE flag is used like a |
| 55 |
"noblah" style flag which is discouraged by the devmanual [1]. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Ulrich |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
[1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/use-flags/#noblah-use-flags |
Archives