1 |
On 27-01-2017 13:08:41 +0100, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
2 |
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> >> Replying here because I think said email client is the one I recently |
4 |
> >> added REQUIRED_USE constraints for. |
5 |
> >> |
6 |
> >> Reason I added it is because it greatly simplified the ebuild: it's not |
7 |
> >> just bdb and gdbm, but also tokyocabinet, qdbm and lmdb, with as result |
8 |
> >> a lot of if-else-casing which implemented the implicit defaults before. |
9 |
> >> I didn't realise changing this to REQUIRED_USE resulted in a conflict on |
10 |
> >> default profiles, because I (obviously) have a package.use entry for the |
11 |
> >> package. |
12 |
> > I don't see Mike saying you got it wrong here. Reading your email, I |
13 |
> > think you did the right thing. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Yup |
16 |
|
17 |
That blurb was more directed at Mart ;) I think I just explained why I |
18 |
did what I did. The scenario in older ebuilds (without REQUIRED_USE) |
19 |
was basically the scenario that Mart suggested to be perferable over the |
20 |
new REQUIRED_USE scenario. |
21 |
|
22 |
I'm not looking for wrong/right. I'm looking for concensus on this |
23 |
topic, then I will likely change the ebuild to match concensus. |
24 |
|
25 |
Fabian |
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
Fabian Groffen |
30 |
Gentoo on a different level |