On 27-01-2017 13:08:41 +0100, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Fabian Groffen <grob...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> Replying here because I think said email client is the one I recently > >> added REQUIRED_USE constraints for. > >> > >> Reason I added it is because it greatly simplified the ebuild: it's not > >> just bdb and gdbm, but also tokyocabinet, qdbm and lmdb, with as result > >> a lot of if-else-casing which implemented the implicit defaults before. > >> I didn't realise changing this to REQUIRED_USE resulted in a conflict on > >> default profiles, because I (obviously) have a package.use entry for the > >> package. > > I don't see Mike saying you got it wrong here. Reading your email, I > > think you did the right thing. > > Yup
That blurb was more directed at Mart ;) I think I just explained why I did what I did. The scenario in older ebuilds (without REQUIRED_USE) was basically the scenario that Mart suggested to be perferable over the new REQUIRED_USE scenario. I'm not looking for wrong/right. I'm looking for concensus on this topic, then I will likely change the ebuild to match concensus. Fabian -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
