| 1 |
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:32:23 +0100 |
| 2 |
Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I'm interested to hear how other people feel about this. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Yeah. Pretty much my reaction to |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> The maintainer should be giving the choice of both, |
| 11 |
> but if only one can be chosen, the maintainer should make the choice |
| 12 |
> for you by preferring one of them. Likely gdbm, given berkdb licensing |
| 13 |
> saga. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Brought the same question to me: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If the design is intended to force your hand when you have both, what is indeed |
| 18 |
the point of a REQUIRED_USE feature at all? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If "choose a useflag for the user" is something that is happening, it should |
| 21 |
at least be *visible* to the user that this is happening, not being a silent |
| 22 |
decision that didn't allow the user to have any say in the matter. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
What if the feature you chose instead, was contrary to the one they wanted? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If anything, I think this is a suggestion that *maybe* we should a way to |
| 27 |
specify a mechanism for allowing a default to be chosen from a mutually |
| 28 |
exclusive set, and then: |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
a. Inform the user via pretend output that this automatic conflict reduction |
| 31 |
has been performed |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
b. Define a portage option that disables automatic conflict resolution for |
| 34 |
required USE, so users who hate (a) can turn it off. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
But as it stands, Mart's suggestion of "Hey, just don't use required use, |
| 38 |
decide for the user" stands essentially as a regression against portage itself. |
Archives