| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 12/08/15 01:38 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> The opposing viewpoint was ferringb believing he could do |
| 8 |
>> "automatic dependency resolution" for a build server setup, |
| 9 |
>> without trying it and without an implementation, and that a |
| 10 |
>> human-readable pkg_pretend would somehow preclude that. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Hm, how about adding a new PM command like "required_use foo |
| 13 |
> -bar"? It would be used exclusively in pkg_pretend, and tell the |
| 14 |
> PM to suggest the necessary package.use changes to the user (or |
| 15 |
> even update them automatically with the appropriate |
| 16 |
> --autounmask-* option). |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> REQUIRED_USE could be banned at the same time. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Ulrich |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
That's an interesting idea.... from the PM perspective do we have |
| 24 |
any functions that can directly affect deptree calculations now? |
| 25 |
Crossing that line is the only thing I forsee right now as being the |
| 26 |
main issue with this one. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Would the 'required_use' function just suggest/set/force the |
| 29 |
necessary change or would it perform the logic too? ie, would we |
| 30 |
just call 'required_use foo -bar', or would we: 'if use foo && use |
| 31 |
bar ; then required_use foo -bar ; fi' ? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 35 |
Version: GnuPG v2 |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlXLhpgACgkQAJxUfCtlWe0bXwEAtDn5LL2VE0xBJqVxQ193kPeo |
| 38 |
Wn8sm6ud5YgUA2hJkBMA/0IDzi4hg7UZsnqdw59m/DGiYE6Devlfo4LoactUVpDD |
| 39 |
=4bED |
| 40 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives