Re: [gentoo-dev] ssl vs openssl vs libressl vs gnutls USE flag foo

[Gordon Pettey]

Is this not precisely what USE_EXPAND is supposed to be for? Take CURL_SSL
and make it generic...

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:06 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > B) 1 feature flag, 3 strict provider flags
> > * ssl: enable any sort of SSL/TLS support
> > * gnutls: only to enable gnutls provided ssl support in case there
> >           is a choice
> > * openssl: only to enable openssl provided ssl support in case
> >            there is a choice (should not be implemented as !gnutls?)
> > * libressl: only to enable libressl provided ssl support in case there
> >             is a choice, must conflict with 'openssl' USE flag
> >
> > consequences:
> > * REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( openssl libressl )" is not only allowed, it is
> >   _mandatory_
> > * packages like media-video/ffmpeg _must_ switch the USE flag
> >   openssl->ssl to avoid breaking global USE flags
> > * !gnutls? ( dev-libs/openssl:0 ) will be bad form or even disallowed
> >
> > B will definitely be more work, but ofc is also a lot cleaner and
> > totally unambigous.
> >
>
> ++
>
> The pain is for a short time.  Then we have to live with this for a
> long time.  USE flags should have one meaning.  The fact that this
> isn't the case right now is already a bug.  We don't need to
> perpetuate it.
>
> Honestly, this just seems like "the right thing" so if there isn't
> opposition then I'd suggest to "just do it" and commit fixes to
> ebuilds that need the fix (ie if maintainer doesn't respond to bug
> quickly just take care of it).  If people object they should speak up
> now, and we can take it up at the next council meeting if necessary
> (which is right around the corner).
>
> --
> Rich
>
>