1 |
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 04:18:27 -0700 |
2 |
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> Summarizing ciaran's claim to end this nonsense- |
4 |
> |
5 |
> VALID_USE isn't useful because use cycle breaking can't be done |
6 |
> according to strictures he desires, as such VALID_USE is pointless |
7 |
> because pkg_pretend can cover it. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> It's a bit brief and likely left out an insult or two, but it's to |
10 |
> the point at least and doesn't need more expounding of his views. |
11 |
|
12 |
Brian, you may find it beneficial to learn that criticism of a proposal |
13 |
is not the same as an insult, and that correct criticism remains valid |
14 |
regardless of where it comes from. Once you learn to accept that, you |
15 |
may start finding it considerably easier to work with large teams on |
16 |
technical issues. |
17 |
|
18 |
And no. My claim is that since VALID_USE on its own doesn't allow for |
19 |
anything that can't also be done by pkg_pretend, and since pkg_pretend |
20 |
can do things that developers and users need that VALID_USE can't, and |
21 |
since pkg_pretend doesn't break anything that's not already broken, |
22 |
VALID_USE shouldn't be a priority. The issue can be revisited for EAPI 5 |
23 |
when there's more Portage development time available, and when it is |
24 |
revisited, it should be done with related issues such as ensuring that |
25 |
cycle breaking is possible without randomly breaking user systems in |
26 |
horrible ways. |
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
Ciaran McCreesh |