Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: hasufell <hasufell@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ssl vs openssl vs libressl vs gnutls USE flag foo
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:13:26
Message-Id: 5633F981.1060700@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] ssl vs openssl vs libressl vs gnutls USE flag foo by "Michał Górny"
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.