| 1 |
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:33:49 -0800 |
| 2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 01/20/2015 10:20 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 09:28:21 -0800 |
| 6 |
> > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >> On 01/20/2015 01:11 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 9 |
> >>> I think we can only make the safest assumption. Even without |
| 10 |
> >>> subslot, if you consider this: || ( a b c d ), with a and c |
| 11 |
> >>> installed but package automagically deciding to use only a, how |
| 12 |
> >>> can a PM decide whether it is safe to remove a or not after the |
| 13 |
> >>> package has been merged ? |
| 14 |
> >> |
| 15 |
> >> Right, this demonstrates that || deps are ambiguous. So, maybe we |
| 16 |
> >> should look at alternatives that are not so ambiguous, such as USE |
| 17 |
> >> conditionals and REQUIRED_USE constraints. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > if you assume there are no automagic deps, what is wrong and/or |
| 20 |
> > ambiguous with '|| ( a b c d ) means "any of them, and at least all |
| 21 |
> > that were available when the package was merged"' ? |
| 22 |
> > in the above example this avoids PM breaking people systems by |
| 23 |
> > removing 'a' (e.g. if another packages pulls in 'd' that has a |
| 24 |
> > blocker against 'a') and as a side effect makes := deps work... |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Sure, but when you start using words like "at least all that were |
| 27 |
> available when the package was merged", it shows a lack of precision |
| 28 |
> in your model. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
"all that were available when the package was merged" is perfectly |
| 31 |
defined. The "at least" is to allow room for dynamic deps but can be |
| 32 |
dropped. |
| 33 |
Simple words don't make things less precise, just more readable :) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
[...] |
Archives