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 |
> |