On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:33:44 +0300 Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bo Ørsted Andresen kirjoitti: > > On Monday 22 September 2008 22:25:20 Petteri Räty wrote: > >>> If you mean something like > >>> > >>> built_with_use cat/foo coolfeature || ewarn "bar will be more > >>> useful if you rebuild cat/foo with USE=coolfeature" > >>> > >>> then you can use > >>> > >>> has_version 'cat/foo[coolfeature]' || ... > >>> > >>> instead. > >> What does this report if cat/foo does not have coolfeature use > >> flag in some version? Meaning can this support cases which need > >> --missing true. > > > > False. If for instance coolfeature was made optional in >=pv you > > can use logic like: > > > > if has_version '>=cat/foo-pv' && ! has_version > > 'cat/foo[coolfeature]'; then ewarn '...' > > fi > > > > I think this should cover all the current functionality with > built_with_use. This is just an ugly hack. Think about a package that has coolfeature useflag removed and enabled by default for a couple of releases because it wouldn't build without it and once upstream sorted out everything the useflag is coming back. Missing useflags that are assumed to be enabled have nothing to do with the package version being greater than a given number. I would *really* prefer having big warnings when using built_with_use in EAPI 2; that way we can see how things are in practice and then maybe make built_with_use die for a later eapi or once all the tree is converted to eapi 2 remove it. Alexis.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
