Re: [gentoo-dev] huse: new helper for low level eclass writers
hopefully i didn't break anything before i go to sleep ;D http://sources.gentoo.org/eclass/toolchain.eclass?r1=1.474r2=1.475 http://sources.gentoo.org/eclass/eutils.eclass?r1=1.366r2=1.367 -mike
Re: [gentoo-dev] huse: new helper for low level eclass writers
On 01:26 Thu 20 Oct , Mike Frysinger wrote: On Wednesday 19 October 2011 15:40:50 Brian Harring wrote: Name's a bit off though considering if the host was amd64, `huse amd64` would return 1 since it's not in IUSE. good point. how about iuse_use ? or use_iuse ? -mike use_in_iuse ? -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Council Member / Sr. Developer Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.com pgpZNI8F46o3g.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] huse: new helper for low level eclass writers
On Thursday 20 October 2011 11:58:44 Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 01:26 Thu 20 Oct , Mike Frysinger wrote: On Wednesday 19 October 2011 15:40:50 Brian Harring wrote: Name's a bit off though considering if the host was amd64, `huse amd64` would return 1 since it's not in IUSE. good point. how about iuse_use ? or use_iuse ? use_in_iuse ? to me, that sounds like is the use flag in iuse. but maybe i'm over thinking things. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] huse: new helper for low level eclass writers
On 12:22 Thu 20 Oct , Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday 20 October 2011 11:58:44 Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 01:26 Thu 20 Oct , Mike Frysinger wrote: On Wednesday 19 October 2011 15:40:50 Brian Harring wrote: Name's a bit off though considering if the host was amd64, `huse amd64` would return 1 since it's not in IUSE. good point. how about iuse_use ? or use_iuse ? use_in_iuse ? to me, that sounds like is the use flag in iuse. but maybe i'm over thinking things. alright, use_if_iuse. That's my last bikeshed for today. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Council Member / Sr. Developer Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.com pgpdYd1xNOUgU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] huse: new helper for low level eclass writers
On 10/20/11 9:22 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote: alright, use_if_iuse. That's my last bikeshed for today. I think this is the best one. I didn't really like any of the previously proposed names, but this one is good. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] huse: new helper for low level eclass writers
On Thursday 20 October 2011 16:01:01 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: On 10/20/11 9:22 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote: alright, use_if_iuse. That's my last bikeshed for today. I think this is the best one. I didn't really like any of the previously proposed names, but this one is good. yeah, this works for me too i'll commit this later if there's no more feedback -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] huse: new helper for low level eclass writers
On Wednesday 19 October 2011 14:05:50 Mike Frysinger wrote:
now that we have in_iuse in eutils.eclass (with all the caveats), i'll be
adding huse:
huse() {
in_iuse $1 || return 1
use $1
}
actually, after posting this, iuse is probably a better name. huse came
up because the code constructs i was using before was like:
has foo ${IUSE} use foo .
which collapses into:
h[as foo ${IUSE} ]use foo ...
huse foo ...
so new proposal for those who love 1 liners:
iuse() { in_iuse $1 use $1 || return 1 ; }
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] huse: new helper for low level eclass writers
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 02:05:50PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i wrote a new func for toolchain.eclass: huse. this is because the
toolchain.eclass supports multiple versions in parallel, and the IUSE value
can vary greatly between them. so doing `use foo` without checking IUSE
first
doesn't work. since i got a request to use this in other eclasses (for the
same reason), i figured i'd move it to eutils.eclass so more people can
benefit.
now that we have in_iuse in eutils.eclass (with all the caveats), i'll be
adding huse:
huse() {
in_iuse $1 || return 1
use $1
}
any comments before i publish ?
Call it safe_use.
~brian
Re: [gentoo-dev] huse: new helper for low level eclass writers
On Wednesday 19 October 2011 14:53:07 Brian Harring wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 02:05:50PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i wrote a new func for toolchain.eclass: huse. this is because the
toolchain.eclass supports multiple versions in parallel, and the IUSE
value can vary greatly between them. so doing `use foo` without
checking IUSE first doesn't work. since i got a request to use this in
other eclasses (for the same reason), i figured i'd move it to
eutils.eclass so more people can benefit.
now that we have in_iuse in eutils.eclass (with all the caveats), i'll
be
adding huse:
huse() {
in_iuse $1 || return 1
use $1
}
any comments before i publish ?
Call it safe_use.
safe for who ? that implies to me much more vagueness than iuse ...
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] huse: new helper for low level eclass writers
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 03:26:21PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 19 October 2011 14:53:07 Brian Harring wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 02:05:50PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i wrote a new func for toolchain.eclass: huse. this is because the
toolchain.eclass supports multiple versions in parallel, and the IUSE
value can vary greatly between them. so doing `use foo` without
checking IUSE first doesn't work. since i got a request to use this in
other eclasses (for the same reason), i figured i'd move it to
eutils.eclass so more people can benefit.
now that we have in_iuse in eutils.eclass (with all the caveats), i'll
be
adding huse:
huse() {
in_iuse $1 || return 1
use $1
}
any comments before i publish ?
Call it safe_use.
safe for who ? that implies to me much more vagueness than iuse ...
Safe in the sense it does basic IUSE checks prior, so it doesn't
trigger QA warnings for when the ebuild doesn't support the flag.
Name's a bit off though considering if the host was amd64, `huse amd64`
would return 1 since it's not in IUSE.
Either way, the 'iuse' naming rather sucks imo; that implies the
equivalent of `use` (is this flag in iuse?) rather than is this flag
in iuse and use.
If you're primarily doing this to bypass the QA warnings, than jam
safe into the name, and/or while making sure the docs are clear about
it.
Either way, go nuts- rather not get into a bikeshedding discussion on
this one. ;)
~harring
Re: [gentoo-dev] huse: new helper for low level eclass writers
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:53:07 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 02:05:50PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i wrote a new func for toolchain.eclass: huse. this is because the
toolchain.eclass supports multiple versions in parallel, and the
IUSE value can vary greatly between them. so doing `use foo`
without checking IUSE first doesn't work. since i got a request to
use this in other eclasses (for the same reason), i figured i'd
move it to eutils.eclass so more people can benefit.
now that we have in_iuse in eutils.eclass (with all the caveats),
i'll be adding huse:
huse() {
in_iuse $1 || return 1
use $1
}
any comments before i publish ?
Call it safe_use.
Maybe something off 'default' instead? It could be made a little like
USE defaults, falling back to the default value when USE isn't declared.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] huse: new helper for low level eclass writers
On Wednesday 19 October 2011 15:40:50 Brian Harring wrote: Name's a bit off though considering if the host was amd64, `huse amd64` would return 1 since it's not in IUSE. good point. how about iuse_use ? or use_iuse ? -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
