Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:30:10 +0200
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:22:26 +0100
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:19:04 +0200
> > Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:13:57 +0100
> > > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:07:00 +0200
> > > > Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote:
> > > > > > The best way to convince me is through valid
> > > > > > examples.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is also easier to be convinced when you try to understand
> > > > > and ask for clarifications instead of just rejecting without
> > > > > thinking :)
> > > >
> > > > The problem with this entire proposal is that it's still in
> > > > "well I can't think of how it could possibly go wrong"
> > > > territory. We need a formal proof that it's sound. History has
> > > > shown that if something can be abused by Gentoo developers, it
> > > > will be abused...
> > >
> > > Had you read the thread you would have noticed that I provided an
> > > algorithm giving sufficient conditions for the solver to work.
> > > That is, if developers pay attention to repoman warnings/errors,
> > > it will never fail. Obviously, since we're still in the SAT
> > > space, you can ignore the errors and make it fail, but it'll
> > > never be worse than what we currently have.
> >
> > You have shown that you produce a solution, not the solution that's
> > actually wanted.
>
> Since 'wanted' is still undefined, I'd say it produces the defined
> solution and you can adapt to the definition to get what you want.

So you're saying that at the end of this, there's an ENFORCED_USE
solver that spits out some answer that may or may not be in any way a
sane solution to the conflict.

I don't see how that's helpful to a user.

-- 
Ciaran mcCreesh