On 12 August 2015 at 16:21, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Can't we all (except for the usual suspect) just agree that REQUIRED_USE > was a mistake, and go back to pkg_pretend? The only justification for > REQUIRED_USE was that it could allegedly be used in an automated > fashion, and this hasn't happened.
I think such a proposal needs to be tested on places where it is used heavily, for instance, python modules where REQUIRED_USE is employed extensively, which could mean a significant number of pkg_pretend phases executing, which *could* be more expensive than the equivalent static dependency code. ( And it could be required that python eclass consumers would all have to provide a pkg_pretend() even if they didn't need required_use behaviour ) I'm not saying it *is*, but a side by side comparison of real-world problems there would be important. ( Maybe the complex dependency resolver stuff is much slower, hard to tell ) -- Kent KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL
