-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 20/09/12 09:52 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:13:40 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius > <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> PMS may not need to be fixed, just the spec > > PMS is the spec, and it doesn't need fixing, since it accurately > reflects the situation we're dealing with. >
Sorry, I misread PMS as PMs (portage, paludis, etc). And, for support to be official for ebuilds or eclasses to query IUSE (or other globals) within phase functions, then the 'spec' (PMS) is probably all that needs to be 'fixed'. Right? So, in EAPI=6, we propose something that'll make it official (ie a querying function; or ensure that PMs can provide these variables along with their proper 'effective' values, or their in-ebuild 'explicit' values, or whatever it is we want to say can be relied upon, to the environment). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlBbJMgACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAlMQD+N9OqgJN8+LR7mir9my5Z7t/9 /3VzJvgozs47ybh3ZrUA/R6rca5Ts/lEn2FWVOpqcK9ajyD8pa9wHaKTzEXpq2+v =F0jI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
