1 |
El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 22:36 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: |
2 |
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 20:49:10 +0200 |
3 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 19:07 +0200, Michał Górny escribió: |
6 |
> > > On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:30:55 +0200 |
7 |
> > > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
8 |
> > > |
9 |
> > > > El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 18:09 +0200, hasufell escribió: |
10 |
> > > > > It breaks the useflag philosophy, IMO. |
11 |
> > > > > |
12 |
> > > > > Useflags were meant as switches. You can turn things on and off. |
13 |
> > > > > Pulling in optional dependencies via useflags does not allow the |
14 |
> > > > > user to turn something off when he sets USE="-foo" emerge |
15 |
> > > > > fuqbar. That should only be valid for virtuals or |
16 |
> > > > > meta-packages. And that's what those are for. |
17 |
> > > > > |
18 |
> > > > |
19 |
> > > > Maybe we could split them from RDEPEND to some kind of |
20 |
> > > > EXTRA_DEPEND (or something else) to fit this purpose. |
21 |
> > > |
22 |
> > > There was already a lot of discussion about this and the community |
23 |
> > > didn't care enough to agree on one of the proposed solutions. You're |
24 |
> > > just reinventing one of them, with a new variable name and the same |
25 |
> > > disadvantages. |
26 |
> > > |
27 |
> > |
28 |
> > Do you have a link to that old thread? Because current situation of |
29 |
> > relying on elog messages also has disadvantages |
30 |
> |
31 |
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/71794 |
32 |
|
33 |
Thanks :) |
34 |
|
35 |
From this one looks like: |
36 |
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/71889 |
37 |
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/71827 |
38 |
|
39 |
are interesting approaches. Personally, SDEPEND approach looks really |
40 |
interesting to me, maybe it's only problem would be how to explain that |
41 |
some extra packages are needed without requiring to elog, but looks like |
42 |
exherbo already implements a solution for this. Other think I would like |
43 |
to see in this approach is to add a way to *globally* configure PM to |
44 |
always accept or discard extra deps by default (even still being able to |
45 |
configure it per package as already suggested) |
46 |
|
47 |
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/72162 |
48 |
> |
49 |
|
50 |
If it's too difficult to implement first EAPI solution ok, but I really |
51 |
would prefer the EAPI way instead of using eclass to show more postinst |
52 |
messages instead as I really prefer this to be handled in a more |
53 |
automatic/configurable way. Also, only packages currently needing to use |
54 |
elog messages for this kind of problem would need to be updated to |
55 |
latest EAPI. |