1 |
On 10/30/2015 11:56 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:40:28 +0100 |
3 |
> hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> On 10/30/2015 10:16 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
6 |
>>> On 10/30/15 3:35 PM, hasufell wrote: |
7 |
>>>> On 10/30/2015 06:55 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
8 |
>>>>> We have no way of saying 'I prefer polarssl, then gnutls, then |
9 |
>>>>> libressl, and never openssl'. |
10 |
>>>> I don't think this is something that can be reasonably supported and it |
11 |
>>>> sounds awfully automagic. And I don't see how this is possible right |
12 |
>>>> now, so I'm not really sure what you expect to get worse. |
13 |
>>>> |
14 |
>>>> E.g. -gnutls pulling in dev-libs/openssl is not really something you'd |
15 |
>>>> expect. If we go for provider USE flags, then things become consistent, |
16 |
>>>> explicit and unambiguous. The only problem is our crappy implementation |
17 |
>>>> of providers USE flags via REQUIRED_USE. |
18 |
>>>> |
19 |
>>> I'm not sure what mgorny has in mind, but the problem I see with saying |
20 |
>>> I want just X to be my provider system wide is that some pkgs build with |
21 |
>>> X others don't, other pkgs might need a different provider. So it might |
22 |
>>> make sense to order them in terms of preference: X1 > X2 > X3 ... and |
23 |
>>> then when emerging a package, the first provider in the preference list |
24 |
>>> that works is pulled in for that package. |
25 |
>>> |
26 |
>> |
27 |
>> Isn't that basically what the proposal B already was, except that we |
28 |
>> don't use REQUIRED_USE for it but some sort of pkg_setup/pkg_pretend |
29 |
>> function? I don't see how those ideas even conflict. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> And some sort of magical USE flag meanings? Please stop this right |
32 |
> here. We don't need 16 USE flag package variants which mean 4 things in |
33 |
> different, random and unexpected ways. |
34 |
> |
35 |
|
36 |
I really have no idea what you mean. This is about NOT doing things |
37 |
magically and not having magical USE flag meanings. |
38 |
|
39 |
Then you complained that you cannot set gnutls and openssl at the same |
40 |
time... and the only way around that is not having REQUIRED_USE. |
41 |
|
42 |
It seems to me you don't really know what you want. Either give an |
43 |
actual proposal or let us move on. |