| 1 |
On 23/01/2017 13:12, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> For example, if you allow use.mask or use.force in mixins, you can end |
| 3 |
> up having unsatisfiable deps that repoman will never catch. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Whoa, that sounds bad. Could you elaborate why we wouldn't be able to |
| 6 |
catch these errors? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Arguably, desktop profiles relying on having an useflag forced on a |
| 9 |
> given package are already semi-broken: they'd be better with the |
| 10 |
> useflag default enabled and proper usedeps, so the mask/force game |
| 11 |
> doesnt seem really useful for mixins. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Could you give examples of such assumptions? I'd agree in general |
| 14 |
usedeps sound like the proper solution. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> It'd also be great to have "rules" ensuring all mixins commute, but I |
| 17 |
> doubt that's easily doable. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Could you elaborate more on that, and what the difficulties are? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Michał: also consider including in the GLEP how eselect profile would |
| 22 |
look like and behave. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Paweł |
Archives