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. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
