| 1 |
On Mon, 2020-05-18 at 13:35 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> All, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I would like to start a discussion on checking the PROPERTIES value in |
| 5 |
> ebuilds. Specifically this could be used to check for live ebuilds |
| 6 |
> instead of assuming that the version number of an ebuild indicates |
| 7 |
> whether the ebuild is live. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Why would an ebuild have to check whether the ebuild is live? Isn't it |
| 10 |
supposed to know that by definition? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> The up side of this would be that we aren't reserving a specific version |
| 13 |
> number for live ebuilds. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
We aren't. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> The down side that is being pointed out to me right now is that |
| 18 |
> we would need a function like in_iuse, but called in_properties, to |
| 19 |
> check the properties. We would need something like this because |
| 20 |
> properties supports use conditionals, e.g. |
| 21 |
> PROPERTIES="foo? ( bar )" |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
No, that's not why we needed in_iuse. We need IUSE because IUSE is |
| 24 |
stacked and there's no guarantee that its value will be correct (or even |
| 25 |
present) at an arbitrary time during ebuild execution. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
in_iuse does not handle USE conditionals because obviously there are |
| 28 |
none in IUSE. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
PROPERTIES isn't stacked at the moment but there is a proposition to |
| 31 |
make it stacked in EAPI 8 for better consistency. Right now it is easy |
| 32 |
to wrongly assume it is stacked and accidentally override it. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Michał Górny |
Archives