Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 311795 - [Future EAPI] Allow dots in USE flag names
Summary: [Future EAPI] Allow dots in USE flag names
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Hosted Projects
Classification: Unclassified
Component: PMS/EAPI (show other bugs)
Hardware: All All
: High normal (vote)
Assignee: PMS/EAPI
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: future-eapi 349021
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2010-03-28 16:29 UTC by Petteri Räty (RETIRED)
Modified: 2019-08-25 19:14 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Petteri Räty (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2010-03-28 16:29:26 UTC
Python people would eventually like to be able to use python-2.6 or something like that in their USE_EXPAND names. PMS currently states [A-Za-z0-9+_@-]. Current situation seems to be that Portage acceps them but repoman doesn't:

[ebuild   R   ] dev-java/ant-core-1.8.0-r2  USE="-doc -foo.bar% -source" 0 kB


  IUSE.invalid                  1
   dev-java/ant-core/ant-core-1.8.0-r2.ebuild: foo.bar
Comment 1 Zac Medico gentoo-dev 2010-03-30 12:00:52 UTC
(In reply to comment #0)
> Current situation seems to be that Portage acceps them but repoman doesn't:

It think repoman is just complaining that there's no description in metadata.xml. Anyway, an EAPI bump for that isn't a bad idea.
Comment 2 Brian Harring gentoo-dev 2010-03-31 01:24:48 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > Current situation seems to be that Portage acceps them but repoman doesn't:
> 
> It think repoman is just complaining that there's no description in
> metadata.xml. Anyway, an EAPI bump for that isn't a bad idea.

I'd be a bit curious how folk plan on dealing w/ parsing metadata.xml (which is eapi unversioned), while varying the EAPI rules for USE parsing of local entries w/in there...
Comment 3 Petteri Räty (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2010-03-31 07:18:21 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> 
> I'd be a bit curious how folk plan on dealing w/ parsing metadata.xml (which is
> eapi unversioned), while varying the EAPI rules for USE parsing of local
> entries w/in there...
> 

Parsing metadata.xml strictly even now is a bad option as they DTD changes every once in a while.
Comment 4 Brian Harring gentoo-dev 2010-03-31 07:29:02 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> Parsing metadata.xml strictly even now is a bad option as they DTD changes
> every once in a while.

Someone might want to point that out since we moved our use local descriptions into metadata.xml ;)

Regardless, dtd changes, sure, but for any PM that does validation of the USE flags that come out of the spec, my point still stands.
Comment 5 Petteri Räty (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2010-03-31 08:24:49 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Parsing metadata.xml strictly even now is a bad option as they DTD changes
> > every once in a while.
> 
> Someone might want to point that out since we moved our use local descriptions
> into metadata.xml ;)
> 

Yeah we could think about coming up with a solution to the metadata.xml problem as a dependency to this one.
Comment 6 Brian Harring gentoo-dev 2010-03-31 09:25:18 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> Yeah we could think about coming up with a solution to the metadata.xml problem
> as a dependency to this one.

Just noting it on the ticket from the irc discussion, profiles/use.desc has the exact same issue...

Might be time to revisit adding a repository version format file (would also be a way to address portage enabling package.mask as a directory for profiles cleanly).
Comment 7 Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev 2018-08-08 14:05:47 UTC
No progress. Closing.