Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Try to specify how to get that a USE flag is present in current ebuild

[Pacho Ramos]

El dom, 23-09-2012 a las 09:36 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> El dom, 23-09-2012 a las 05:52 +0000, Alec Warner escribió:
> > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:
> > > El sáb, 22-09-2012 a las 13:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger escribió:
> > >> On Friday 21 September 2012 15:08:20 Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > >> > In that one, we try to use the following:
> > >> > has vala ${IUSE//+/} && ! use vala && return 0
> > >>
> > >> inherit eutils
> > >> use_if_iuse vala
> > >> -mike
> > >
> > > I am aware of that one also, but Ciaran also wants to forbid it for the
> > > same reason :S
> >
> > Well I assume Ciaran wants to forbid it because he is attempting to
> > write a PMS compliant PM; but in order to use these ebuilds properly
> > he has to emulate the unspecified behavior that the ebuilds rely on
> > upon. His claim is that the council is supposed to forbid this
> > behavior (presumably to make his job less horrible) but I don't see
> > them beating down your door to change it (and the behavior is not
> > new.)
> >
> > -A
> >
> >
>
> My point of view is that, as this is already supported in portage (and
> probably in other PMs as, otherwise, they would have had a lot of
> problems with, for example, a lot of packages inheritting important
> eclasses like gnome2, cmake-utils or xorg-2) and also used in the tree
> for years, the easiest solution is to simply specify current behavior
> for existing eapis, needing to wait for a new one to change that
> behavior.
>
> As I pointed in http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/260662
> other options would be:
> - wait for next eapi to specify that, the problem is that, if that eapi
> take a long time to be approved, we would need to move all
> eclasses/ebuilds to the other non-automatic way to later revert
> them back.
> - include this specification in eapi5 as it's still not allowed in the
> tree (maybe for this a council meeting should be soon enough I guess)
>

As looks like this topic got stalled :(, not sure how hard would be to
implement (and document for PMS) the IUSE_FLATTENED idea over current
portage implementation:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/260812#260812