| 1 |
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 23:21 +0100, Paul Bredbury wrote: |
| 2 |
> > Ah... that was an example of a package that isn't installed that |
| 3 |
> > *shouldn't* have *negative* return from built_with_use. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Wrong. Substitute "positive" for "negative", and your sentence makes |
| 6 |
> sense, but invalidates your point. |
| 7 |
Ah, the argument by assertion. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> > Equally, it hasn't been built *without* that USE flag. |
| 10 |
> How does that invalidate the conclusion that the |
| 11 |
> package hasn't been built? |
| 12 |
> ... |
| 13 |
> It's not "guessing". It's sensible behaviour. It's not random. it's |
| 14 |
> logical, it's consistent, and it makes sense. |
| 15 |
1. package has been built with USE flag. (True) |
| 16 |
2. package has been built without USE flag. (False) |
| 17 |
3. package has not been built. (?) |
| 18 |
There is no reason to conflate 3 with either 1 or 2; 1 and 2 are |
| 19 |
symmetrical. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> > vdb is preferred over package.provided. |
| 22 |
> Of course. It has a higher priority, and is consulted first. Your point |
| 23 |
> is? |
| 24 |
I was addressing your previous point. Which you failed to include in |
| 25 |
your most recent reply. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> The bug I'm referring to is bug #139842. Which is currently marked |
| 28 |
> "wontfix", and contains 2 patches which fix the bug. |
| 29 |
The patch to portageq (has_version) looks good. The built_with_use patch |
| 30 |
- well, built_with_use has already been fixed to die when the package |
| 31 |
doesn't exist. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Ed |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives