On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 06:04:51AM +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > A potential dev-libs/dep package
I assume this is a hypothetical package; if this is something out of your personal eapi/repo, please state so. > might have valid use case for USE flags related to USE_EXPAND="DEP". > Your suggested syntax for types of dependencies in DEPENDENCIES would > conflict with these USE flags > after implementing ":" delimiter for USE_EXPAND-related USE flags. Actually, that was both the intent, and I thought explicitly clear/documented; 'dep' would be a PM controlled namespace- as I'm pretty sure I stated in the doc, else in that email thread on the subject. Thus, yep, you got me, you can't create a USE_EXPAND/USE_GROUP named 'dep'. I very, very strongly doubt that anyone ever would come up with a scenario where this is required, and the alternative name is somehow worse. Please give examples. Also, you should keep in mind that w/ what I ultimately want for USE_EXPAND, we'd have a couple other namespace that couldn't be used by ebuilds/profiles. Top of the head, * arch; kind of a given, alternate addressing of x86 via arch:x86. Would be added purely for consistency, although iteration of the potential values would warrant the group existing. * use; same reasoning as arch, added for consistency so the consuming code doesn't have to special case things. * phase; intentionally reserved should we ever decide to do per phase restrict control (aka, turning userpriv off just for the test phase). * license; Now, this one I *am* spitballing a bit- I'm not proposing it, just frankly thinking out loud. If we had a license namespace there, we could potentially mask out certain deps if the user requested say pure bsd, or as a potential way to properly integrate in our existing bindist support; keep in mind if the group existed, we could use it in REQUIRED_USE also. Either way, you get the idea; it was explicit that in fixing use_expand, a few namespaces would be offlimits. > I vote for a separate syntax for types of dependencies. A separate syntax, or keeping dep:build? from conflicting w/ someone wanting to use USE_EXPAND="DEP" ? If you've got other critiques state them, else, while your opinion is yours, I doubt anyone is going to agree with you that it's a deal breaker. ~harring
