-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 20/09/12 03:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:43:11 +0200 Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> > wrote: > >> El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 02:14 -0400, Alexandre Rostovtsev >> escribió: >>> Revised to use a separate variable for the name of the flag >>> instead of reading IUSE, as suggested by Ciaran McCreesh. As a >>> result of this change, vala.eclass now defaults to assuming >>> that vala support is optional (which is the case in an >>> overwhelming majority of ebuilds that would want to use this >>> eclass). >> >> Sorry but, why even in_iuse function from eutils.eclass cannot >> be used? If that is really not allowed, why we have that function >> in eutils.eclass? >> >> There are lots of cases in eclasses relying on things like >> original suggested way or in_iuse from eutils.eclass and would >> like to clarify things before going with a more complex way than >> original. >> >> I already know Ciaran's opinion on this, but would like to know >> more opinion and, most important, is this is really allowed or >> not and, if not, we should try to migrate current eclasses to the >> "fixed" way if there is really a way providing similar function. > > Well, it works and people use it, so it's better to keep a good > function rather than rely on people remembering to handle all > stripping and splitting correctly. > > I wanted to propose fixing PMS but, as you can see, there are > mysterious broken systems which nobody has ever seen but surely > exist somewhere and Ciaran won't waste his time telling us where in > his imagination it is, and thus we can't simply fix it. >
PMS may not need to be fixed, just the spec -- ie, (if I'm understanding Ciaran properly), as long as the spec says that the effective IUSE (or other globals) is available for access (via function getter or however) during phase functions, then PMS will have to guarantee it to be there. Right now they don't, and so even if it works we can't rely on it working because said functionality might break in the course of regular portage/other PMS development (and doesn't need to be fixed because to date it's not in the spec). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlBbFoQACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCWIAEAkDBX6zRm9uAygFTAoNuVKPEq Weq2eFQATLdYjUQ1HhoA/0dG89SayOG3gjSefG92A62H+EeBARQpPpa/xxAqoESi =hhU4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
