| 1 |
Alexis Ballier kirjoitti: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> When EAPI 2 goes live built_with_use should probably die for most |
| 5 |
>> cases. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I don't understand here: you mean die like being removed or die like |
| 8 |
> the die call in an ebuild? If I understood correctly the following it |
| 9 |
> should be the latter. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Well we could go with either but if there are valid use cases we need to |
| 13 |
go with the latter. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
>> Are there valid use cases for built_with_use that are not |
| 16 |
>> covered by the use deps in EAPI 2? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I can think of checks like: |
| 19 |
> - foo is a dep/rdep of bar |
| 20 |
> - foo has a "plugin like" architecture |
| 21 |
> - bar will "work" with minimal foo |
| 22 |
> - most people will expect some features in bar that come with foo's |
| 23 |
> plugins |
| 24 |
> - we might want to display warnings for the most useful features |
| 25 |
> - having useflags in bar for each of foo's useflags doesn't seem wise |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Ok that's not really a nice example but I can't think of anything |
| 29 |
> better at the moment. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> By the way, how will the --missing option of built_with_use be handled |
| 32 |
> by eapi 2? |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Alexis. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Why should it be any different than what it is now? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Regards, |
| 39 |
Petteri |
Archives