| 1 |
Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 11:23:26PM +0000, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>Soo apparently I wasn't subscribed...stupid address changes ;) |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>Patch ( which is actually v0.2 since 0.1 was a proof of concept.. ) for |
| 7 |
>>having USE flag defaults in ebuilds. The variable IUSE_DEFAULTS was |
| 8 |
>>chosen for backwards compatability, although I'm sure we will get |
| 9 |
>>complaints about extra variables and tree bloat. If you have a better |
| 10 |
>>variable name, by all means propose it ;) |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> IUSE- eapi bump it, I pushed for the var for exactly crap like this ;) |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> The only (imo) reason to add the USE_ORDER chunks is because users use |
| 16 |
> -* to castrate auto-use; auto-use is dead in 2.1, so the main reason |
| 17 |
> for using -* is gone. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> So... really worth adding another chunk of metadata for this? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Well that problem would be, no one wants to modify everything in |
| 23 |
app-portage/ :). If my portage EAPI is 1, but my tools don't support |
| 24 |
processing +- in IUSE, how does EAPI help me here? The support check is |
| 25 |
only for portage_const, so the tool remains fucked. Unless I'm missing |
| 26 |
something. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> Tiz your guys show, your choice on it but either way, an EAPI bump |
| 29 |
> *should* be required (addition of new metadata that affects the |
| 30 |
> resultant/desired deps would qualify), so you've got room to manuever |
| 31 |
> on it. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> ~harring |
Archives