| 1 |
On Mon, 29 May 2017 21:42:33 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On pon, 2017-05-29 at 20:24 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Mon, 29 May 2017 17:33:13 +0200 |
| 5 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > For a long time we seem to be missing appropriate tools to handle |
| 7 |
> > > USE flag constraints efficiently. EAPI 4 brought REQUIRED_USE but |
| 8 |
> > > all things considered, it has proven to be far from an optimal |
| 9 |
> > > solution. I would therefore like to discuss adding a better tool |
| 10 |
> > > to amend or replace it, to allow for automated handling of USE |
| 11 |
> > > flag constraints. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > REQUIRED_USE's problems all come from it being thrown in at the last |
| 14 |
> > minute without any testing of either the user experience or the |
| 15 |
> > feasibility of its implementation. Have you implemented a prototype |
| 16 |
> > to show that you can actually fix those problems? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I tend to RFC before starting the implementation. Saves effort. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Not the implementation. A prototype implementation. As we saw from |
| 21 |
REQUIRED_USE, it really doesn't save effort to spend time specifying |
| 22 |
something that can't even remotely work... |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives