1 |
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On 10/30/15 3:35 PM, hasufell wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> On 10/30/2015 06:55 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
5 |
>>> |
6 |
>>> We have no way of saying 'I prefer polarssl, then gnutls, then |
7 |
>>> libressl, and never openssl'. |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> I don't think this is something that can be reasonably supported and it |
10 |
>> sounds awfully automagic. And I don't see how this is possible right |
11 |
>> now, so I'm not really sure what you expect to get worse. |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> E.g. -gnutls pulling in dev-libs/openssl is not really something you'd |
14 |
>> expect. If we go for provider USE flags, then things become consistent, |
15 |
>> explicit and unambiguous. The only problem is our crappy implementation |
16 |
>> of providers USE flags via REQUIRED_USE. |
17 |
>> |
18 |
> I'm not sure what mgorny has in mind, but the problem I see with saying I |
19 |
> want just X to be my provider system wide is that some pkgs build with X |
20 |
> others don't, other pkgs might need a different provider. So it might make |
21 |
> sense to order them in terms of preference: X1 > X2 > X3 ... and then when |
22 |
> emerging a package, the first provider in the preference list that works is |
23 |
> pulled in for that package. |
24 |
|
25 |
I think that would be useful in general. It would probably not be |
26 |
useful in this case, since it was somebody's bright idea to make it |
27 |
essentially impossible to install two of the options on the same |
28 |
system (and that wasn't directed at hasufell). Users could of course |
29 |
still express the preference, but the PM would need to be smart enough |
30 |
to ignore that preference on 95% of packages that support both options |
31 |
so that it can take the lower preference on the 5% of packages that |
32 |
only support the option the user didn't really want. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Rich |