| 1 |
On 10/30/2015 10:16 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10/30/15 3:35 PM, hasufell wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 10/30/2015 06:55 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> We have no way of saying 'I prefer polarssl, then gnutls, then |
| 5 |
>>> libressl, and never openssl'. |
| 6 |
>> I don't think this is something that can be reasonably supported and it |
| 7 |
>> sounds awfully automagic. And I don't see how this is possible right |
| 8 |
>> now, so I'm not really sure what you expect to get worse. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> E.g. -gnutls pulling in dev-libs/openssl is not really something you'd |
| 11 |
>> expect. If we go for provider USE flags, then things become consistent, |
| 12 |
>> explicit and unambiguous. The only problem is our crappy implementation |
| 13 |
>> of providers USE flags via REQUIRED_USE. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
> I'm not sure what mgorny has in mind, but the problem I see with saying |
| 16 |
> I want just X to be my provider system wide is that some pkgs build with |
| 17 |
> X others don't, other pkgs might need a different provider. So it might |
| 18 |
> make sense to order them in terms of preference: X1 > X2 > X3 ... and |
| 19 |
> then when emerging a package, the first provider in the preference list |
| 20 |
> that works is pulled in for that package. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Isn't that basically what the proposal B already was, except that we |
| 24 |
don't use REQUIRED_USE for it but some sort of pkg_setup/pkg_pretend |
| 25 |
function? I don't see how those ideas even conflict. |
Archives