| 1 |
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 06:04:51AM +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: |
| 2 |
> A potential dev-libs/dep package |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
I assume this is a hypothetical package; if this is something out of |
| 5 |
your personal eapi/repo, please state so. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> might have valid use case for USE flags related to USE_EXPAND="DEP". |
| 8 |
> Your suggested syntax for types of dependencies in DEPENDENCIES would conflict with these USE flags |
| 9 |
> after implementing ":" delimiter for USE_EXPAND-related USE flags. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Actually, that was both the intent, and I thought explicitly |
| 12 |
clear/documented; 'dep' would be a PM controlled namespace- as I'm |
| 13 |
pretty sure I stated in the doc, else in that email thread on the |
| 14 |
subject. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Thus, yep, you got me, you can't create a USE_EXPAND/USE_GROUP named |
| 17 |
'dep'. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I very, very strongly doubt that anyone ever would come up with a |
| 20 |
scenario where this is required, and the alternative name is somehow |
| 21 |
worse. Please give examples. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Also, you should keep in mind that w/ what I ultimately want for |
| 24 |
USE_EXPAND, we'd have a couple other namespace that couldn't be used |
| 25 |
by ebuilds/profiles. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Top of the head, |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
* arch; kind of a given, alternate addressing of x86 via arch:x86. |
| 30 |
Would be added purely for consistency, although iteration of the |
| 31 |
potential values would warrant the group existing. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
* use; same reasoning as arch, added for consistency so the consuming |
| 34 |
code doesn't have to special case things. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
* phase; intentionally reserved should we ever decide to do per phase |
| 37 |
restrict control (aka, turning userpriv off just for the test phase). |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
* license; Now, this one I *am* spitballing a bit- I'm not proposing |
| 40 |
it, just frankly thinking out loud. If we had a license namespace |
| 41 |
there, we could potentially mask out certain deps if the user |
| 42 |
requested say pure bsd, or as a potential way to properly integrate in |
| 43 |
our existing bindist support; keep in mind if the group existed, we |
| 44 |
could use it in REQUIRED_USE also. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Either way, you get the idea; it was explicit that in fixing |
| 48 |
use_expand, a few namespaces would be offlimits. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> I vote for a separate syntax for types of dependencies. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
A separate syntax, or keeping dep:build? from conflicting w/ someone |
| 54 |
wanting to use USE_EXPAND="DEP" ? |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
If you've got other critiques state them, else, while your opinion is |
| 57 |
yours, I doubt anyone is going to agree with you that it's a deal |
| 58 |
breaker. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
~harring |
Archives