| 1 |
On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:27:01 -0400 |
| 2 |
Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> If you want to define behavior that can be relied upon in ebuilds, it |
| 5 |
> should be specified in PMS. PMS does not define any meaning for the |
| 6 |
> "test" USE flag. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
We should eschew idealism about how the world *should* behave, and avoid |
| 9 |
making portage a steaming garbage heap in order to comply with a |
| 10 |
terrible PMS specification of a heavily used feature. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
And we should aim to make this design less crappy in some future EAPI. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
And honestly, I've hated the fact we implement test dependencies via: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
DEPENDS="test? ( ... )" for so long, its an obvious hack, a terrible |
| 17 |
one at that. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I just haven't seen any good proposals for an alternative, let alone |
| 20 |
one that got penned up for a future EAPI. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
But lets not make portage *worse* while we wait for this imaginary |
| 23 |
future. |
Archives