| 1 |
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:04:37 -0600 |
| 2 |
Matthias Maier <tamiko@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > well then 'ihateudev' masking udev, 'ihateeudev' masking eudev and |
| 5 |
> > 'ihatesystemd' masking systemd; what are the blockers here? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> You make three profiles, 'udev', 'eudev', 'systemd' and put them in |
| 8 |
> one group and let them block said group. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
so... the mixins I proposed above shouldn't be allowed, right ? |
| 12 |
why ? what is the logic ? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Note: It might seem I dislike the idea of mixins. In fact, it is the |
| 16 |
contrary, I think those are deeply needed. I'm simply pointing out that |
| 17 |
making them too expressive means giving up on some static checks. Maybe |
| 18 |
that's ok, I don't know, maybe it is possible to keep completeness of |
| 19 |
repoman checks while still having enough expressiveness: In my very |
| 20 |
first answer, I throwed the idea that mixins shouldnt change packages |
| 21 |
visibility. It is probably too restrictive and you've just shown that |
| 22 |
it is possible to do it correctly without that restriction. However, I |
| 23 |
still don't have a good idea of what would be the rule applied to |
| 24 |
mixins to ensure that. |
Archives