1 |
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:30:19 +0100 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:20:06 +0200 Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> |
4 |
> wrote: |
5 |
>> Who is we? I believe REQUIRED_USE is one of the features which will be |
6 |
>> available thanks to staying compatible with USE flags instead of |
7 |
>> reinventing the wheel. |
8 |
|
9 |
Umm... if I read the preceding posts correctly, you missed his intent |
10 |
there. He's not saying it'll be unavailable to be used in the |
11 |
implementation, he's saying we don't want to repeat the experience of the |
12 |
"bumpy ride" (see below) that required use is, for the user, in a new |
13 |
implementation. |
14 |
|
15 |
> Yes, but the REQUIRED_USE wheel is square, and gives a *very* bumpy ride |
16 |
> to users. It also isn't particularly easy for developers. |
17 |
|
18 |
Umm... perhaps pentagonal, the physics of a square wheel... <shudder>. |
19 |
|
20 |
But yes, as a user who has had to resolve REQUIRED_USE related problems a |
21 |
number of times recently, a *very* bumpy ride for the user, it often is! |
22 |
Definitely agreed there. |
23 |
|
24 |
And also agreed with the implication, that we want to avoid a similarly |
25 |
bumpy-ride implementation here. |
26 |
|
27 |
(Implimentation-wise, IMO the problem with REQUIRED_USE is often how the |
28 |
ebuild used the REQUIRED_USE, something I'm hopeful it'll improve over |
29 |
time as devs get a bit more used to how REQUIRED_USE works and design |
30 |
ebuild functionality around it, not triggering the double-uses where they |
31 |
can be avoided without seriously impairing the choices exposed by USE |
32 |
flags in the first place, and a better REQUIRED_USE implementation is |
33 |
certainly a challenge, but it's equally certainly an extremely bumpy ride |
34 |
for the user, as it is today.) |
35 |
|
36 |
>> > b) How is consistency checking to be done? Related, what happens when |
37 |
>> > a runtime switch introduces a dependency that then requires a |
38 |
>> > non-runtime rebuild of the original package? |
39 |
>> |
40 |
>> Then the package is rebuilt. Where's the problem? |
41 |
> |
42 |
> The problem is in implementing that correctly... It's certainly doable, |
43 |
> but it's not entirely trivial, depending upon how you're doing |
44 |
> resolution. |
45 |
> |
46 |
>> Handling of REQUIRED_USE is not perfectly user friendly but it works. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Like a square wheel, yes. |
49 |
|
50 |
Pentagonal (or at least rounded corners on the square... tho of course |
51 |
then there's patent issues!), but agreed. |
52 |
|
53 |
-- |
54 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
55 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
56 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |