| 1 |
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 17:50:43 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:20:01 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Ralph Sennhauser <sera@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > * IMPLICIT_IUSE |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Finally allow to write legal ebuilds respecting Prefix wish to not |
| 9 |
> > have to add prefix to IUSE. A solution was proposed and approved |
| 10 |
> > by council. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366555 |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> That one's one of the "things that were left out of EAPI 4". |
| 15 |
> IMPLICIT_IUSE isn't something you can do on its own without the rest |
| 16 |
> of the original-EAPI-3 USE cleanup. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Is there anything beside the IMPLICIT_IUSE left from the original EAPI |
| 21 |
3 proposal which didn't made it into either EAPI 3 or 4 but would be |
| 22 |
required? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I don't mind if EAPI 5 is the only EAPI properly handling this case and |
| 25 |
declaring it undefined behaviour (in fact the same as the current |
| 26 |
situation) for earlier ones. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Ralph |
Archives