On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 19:41 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:37:19 -0400 > Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetrom...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > That suggests that the EAPI ought to define a second category of > > USE_EXPAND flags, one that has a different treatment of (+)/(-). > > > > Something like the following: > > > > A dependency on $foo[linguas_bar(+)] would be considered satisfied by > > an ebuild X matching $foo iff: > > 1. X has linguas_bar in IUSE and enabled; or > > 2. X does not have linguas_bar in IUSE, but there exists an ebuild Y > > (which may or may not equal X) matching $foo such that Y has at least > > one linguas_* flag in IUSE. > > That's sensitive to old versions ebuilds being removed from the tree, so > it's utterly unworkable.
I do not see why you think it's unworkable. Ebuilds already have dependencies that can be broken by removing an old version; if wombat depends on foo[bar], and you removed the only version of foo that had bar in IUSE, you broke wombat. Adding special LINGUAS handling would not change the fact that before deleting an ebuild, you need to verify that you did not render other ebuilds' dependencies unsatisfiable.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
