| 1 |
El mié, 03-10-2012 a las 19:18 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió: |
| 2 |
> El mar, 02-10-2012 a las 13:30 +0200, Fabian Groffen escribió: |
| 3 |
> > Pacho, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > On 25-09-2012 21:32:50 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > This is from: |
| 7 |
> > > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/260662 |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > But corrected to remember preferred usage of in_iuse from eutils.eclass |
| 10 |
> > > as remembered by mgorny in that thread: |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > I've considered your point, but concluded that at this moment, the |
| 13 |
> > Council basically has nothing to do here. It seems obvious that it |
| 14 |
> > needs something to be defined in a next EAPI, but the Council is not the |
| 15 |
> > body to invent that. |
| 16 |
> > Please discuss with involved people (Portage devs?) and prepare a patch |
| 17 |
> > to PMS that can be used as feature for the next EAPI. Brian's |
| 18 |
> > IUSE_FLATTENED might be a simple and good solution for that. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > Best, |
| 21 |
> > Fabian |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> And what about current usage in the tree with current eapis? Regarding |
| 25 |
> IUSE_FLATTENED I have no problem with it, but will need to talk with |
| 26 |
> portage team also as they have the current implementation |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
And then, I think council should clarify what to do with current usages |
| 29 |
in the tree with eapi0-4 |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Thanks |
Archives