1 |
On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 13:32:34 +0800 |
2 |
konsolebox <konsolebox@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> "A useflag that entirely goes away depending on the version" (or a |
5 |
> flag that is implemented in one ebuild but is not on another) is |
6 |
> pretty common among packages and I see that as totally valid, and is |
7 |
> way better than a solution that uses dynamic default. |
8 |
|
9 |
I think the main assumption I'm trying to challenge here is that users |
10 |
would desire different USE and BUILD configurations based on _rc |
11 |
status, and I don't think that's much the case. |
12 |
|
13 |
People IME tend to prefer to set something on a package level, and then |
14 |
apply consistent enforcement for all versions, or perhaps apply USE |
15 |
flags to ranges of versions ( ie: everything larger than X, everything |
16 |
smaller than X ), or on a per-slot basis. |
17 |
|
18 |
Mostly because its consistent and minimises the amount of effort. |
19 |
|
20 |
Thus, for basically any argument you can make for having the USE flag |
21 |
at all, maps to an argument that applies to both _rc and non _rc |
22 |
versions. |
23 |
|
24 |
And I get the impression that the desire you have to have different |
25 |
behaviour for non-rc versions is a bit niche. |
26 |
|
27 |
( I can appreciate it in a -9999 version, but that produces a situation |
28 |
which falls under "all versions larger than 9" and thus gives you |
29 |
version-range based consistency. ) |
30 |
|
31 |
Anything else seems to me to devolve into "being too fiddly", and may |
32 |
discourage testing. |
33 |
|
34 |
But I also see it that people who are testing _rc + KEYWORDS="" |
35 |
versions to be people who's express intent is to optimise for maximum |
36 |
breakage, in order to find the most possible problems before they |
37 |
happen, and problems like "readline version is too new or too old" are |
38 |
exactly the kinds of problems I'd want to make sure we didn't have |
39 |
before we shipped bash in that configuration to everyone ( even to |
40 |
~arch ) |