| 1 |
On Tue, 2020-06-16 at 23:07 +0000, Michael Lienhardt wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dear all, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> My bad for not noticing it sooner, but when there is a dependency like ">=sys-fs/udev-208-r1:0/0[static-libs?]" (that occurs in virtual/libgudev-215-r3), |
| 5 |
> since 'static-libs' is not a use flags of sys-fs/udev-242, that cpv is silently not considered during dependency solving by emerge. |
| 6 |
> However, the PMS states: |
| 7 |
> - it is an error for a use dependency to be applied to an ebuild which does not have the flag in question in IUSE_REFERENCEABLE |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This is a bit like undefined behavior. PMS says such a thing shouldn't |
| 11 |
happen (i.e. the ebuild is wrong) but does not force specific error |
| 12 |
handling. You could reject the ebuild entirely or reject dependencies |
| 13 |
that don't have the flag in question (even if it's disabled). You could |
| 14 |
also pretend it's 'static-libs(-)?' but that would be bad if the default |
| 15 |
was supposed to be '(+)'. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> This is related to the tool I'm working on: should my tool allow this behavior, or fail like it is currently doing (I guess the former)? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That depends on what the tool is doing. I suppose you probably don't |
| 21 |
need very strict behavior there. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Best regards, |
| 25 |
Michał Górny |
Archives