Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Francesco Riosa <vivo75@×××××.com>
To: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
Cc: gentoo development <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: Improve description of USE=test
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 23:56:33
Message-Id: CAD6zcDwq4D+x3R8ZB_hjP8OxKD+T1TZ-FH1Z8PD91n+qPCdT+A@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] use.desc: Improve description of USE=test by Zac Medico
1 Il giorno sab 25 ago 2018 alle ore 01:45 Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> ha
2 scritto:
3
4 > On 08/24/2018 04:14 PM, Francesco Riosa wrote:
5 > >
6 > > Il 24/08/18 19:08, Mike Gilbert ha scritto:
7 > >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:45 AM Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o>
8 > wrote:
9 > >>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:27:01 -0400
10 > >>> Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote:
11 > >>>
12 > >>>> If you want to define behavior that can be relied upon in ebuilds, it
13 > >>>> should be specified in PMS. PMS does not define any meaning for the
14 > >>>> "test" USE flag.
15 > >>> We should eschew idealism about how the world *should* behave, and
16 > avoid
17 > >>> making portage a steaming garbage heap in order to comply with a
18 > >>> terrible PMS specification of a heavily used feature.
19 > >> Portage still works just fine for most people who would enable
20 > >> FEATURES=test. Stop exaggerating.
21 > >>
22 > > People enabling FEATURES=test on most but not all packages had some
23 > > troubles and they need to disable them in both package.{env,use}
24 > > I'd like to have a flag to reinstate the previous portage behaviour, but
25 > > that's probably too late
26 >
27 > Would a FEATURES setting that implies RESTRICT="!test? ( test )" for all
28 > ebuilds do what you want?
29 >
30
31 "want" is too much,
32 but it would have been pleasant to have something to keep portage
33 dependancies working as before.
34 "testrespectuse" or "usetestrespectfeatures" come to mind or another
35 command line option.
36
37
38
39
40 > --
41 > Thanks,
42 > Zac
43 >

Replies