1 |
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:14:18 +0100 |
2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:03:05 +0200 |
5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > > No, you're not guaranteed to get the ebuild's value of IUSE, or |
7 |
> > > any particular eclass's value of IUSE, or the merged value of |
8 |
> > > IUSE. In particular for this case, it's possible to get false |
9 |
> > > negatives. |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Then fix the spec. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> The spec accurately reflects the mess that is global and metadata |
14 |
> variables. Portage has historically done all kinds of different things |
15 |
> here (sometimes varying depending upon whether you're a binary, |
16 |
> whether things are being loaded from VDB, whether env saving has |
17 |
> happened previously etc), and the code is rather sensitive to |
18 |
> apparently minor changes in bash versions. Thus we don't provide |
19 |
> guarantees. |
20 |
|
21 |
The historical mess is not relevant anymore. Is there a single real case |
22 |
when IUSE does not contain *at least* the ebuild-set IUSE? |
23 |
|
24 |
-- |
25 |
Best regards, |
26 |
Michał Górny |