1 |
On 09/21/2012 01:38 PM, Brian Harring wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:45:30PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
3 |
>> On 09/21/2012 12:08 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
4 |
>>> Hello |
5 |
>>> |
6 |
>>> This comes from this gentoo-dev thread: |
7 |
>>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/260536 |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> In that one, we try to use the following: |
10 |
>>> has vala ${IUSE//+/} && ! use vala && return 0 |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
>>> as already done in many eclasses/ebuilds. The problem is that Ciaran |
13 |
>>> wants to forbid it because he says it's not specified in PMS. My |
14 |
>>> suggestion was to simply specify it as it's currently implemented in |
15 |
>>> portage because that functionality is (apart of needed) being used for a |
16 |
>>> long time in the tree by numerous eclasses/ebuilds, then, from my point |
17 |
>>> of view, wouldn't be any sense on lose time for moving them to current |
18 |
>>> functionality to a worse one, wait for the next eapi and, finally, |
19 |
>>> revert them back to current behavior. |
20 |
>>> |
21 |
>>> The problem is that I cannot find any doc about how this is currently |
22 |
>>> handled in portage. Could you help me on it please? |
23 |
>> |
24 |
>> That `has vala ${IUSE//+/}` thing should work for all versions of |
25 |
> |
26 |
> *cough* negated defaults; you need a - in addition. |
27 |
|
28 |
Good point. The negated ones didn't have much meaning for a long time, |
29 |
so it's easy to overlook them. Nowadays, they can be used to negate |
30 |
repo-level defaults [1]. |
31 |
|
32 |
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=370693 |
33 |
-- |
34 |
Thanks, |
35 |
Zac |