| 1 |
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 20:58:46 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> >>>>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > The spec is correct, and discusses what you can actually rely upon |
| 5 |
> > working. It is unfortunate that the Council introduced this |
| 6 |
> > confusion by approving "what Portage has implemented" for EAPI 4, |
| 7 |
> > without considering the implications of approving (+) and (-) |
| 8 |
> > without the stricter USE rules. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Maybe it becomes clearer if we imagine for the moment that there never |
| 11 |
> was an EAPI 4. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
It does: the rule then would be "if you want to use (+) and (-) on a |
| 14 |
USE_EXPAND flag, then you may only depend upon packages whose EAPI also |
| 15 |
supports (+) and (-)". |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> What am I missing here? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
In EAPIs before 5, there is no requirement that packages using a |
| 20 |
USE_EXPAND flag actually list that flag in IUSE. Some versions of |
| 21 |
Portage would do filtering on USE based upon some convoluted scheme |
| 22 |
that Zac invented, and some would not. Thus there's not enough |
| 23 |
information in VDB to determine whether a "missing" flag is actually |
| 24 |
missing. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives