1 |
On 10/28/2015 07:23 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> Agreed. If there's one choice then "ssl" should be used. openssl/libressl/etc |
4 |
> should really be considered sub-flags of ssl. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> I really wish we had some way of specifying this to make things clearer to the |
7 |
> user, so they could see exactly how these flags interact with each other. |
8 |
> Something like (emerge -pv): |
9 |
> |
10 |
|
11 |
The problem here is that we introduced REQUIRED_USE foo for these cases |
12 |
which is again highly ambigous instead of making the PM aware that this |
13 |
is an actual sub-USE flag. |
14 |
|
15 |
This is outside of the scope of this thread, but there are already |
16 |
distros that have fixed this: |
17 |
1. NixOS [0] with truly declarative configuration format, e.g. something |
18 |
like: |
19 |
packages.ssl.provider = openssl; |
20 |
|
21 |
or somesuch (just an example) |
22 |
|
23 |
2. Exherbo partly [1] with providers syntax: |
24 |
*/* providers: -openssl libressl |
25 |
|
26 |
and the exheres would then do something like: |
27 |
DEPENDENCIES=" |
28 |
build+run: |
29 |
providers:openssl? ( dev-libs/openssl:0 ) |
30 |
providers:libressl? ( dev-libs/libressl ) |
31 |
" |
32 |
|
33 |
which is a lot cleaner than USE_EXPAND + REQUIRED_USE, which still can |
34 |
have arbitrary meanings. |
35 |
|
36 |
But NIH will prevent us from learning here I guess. |
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
[0] https://nixos.org/nixos/manual/ |
40 |
[1] http://exherbo.org/docs/eapi/providers-and-virtuals.html |