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.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
