| 1 |
On 01/27/2017 01:01 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Ühel kenal päeval, N, 26.01.2017 kell 22:33, kirjutas Mike Gilbert: |
| 4 |
>>> I recently ran into a REQUIRED_USE constraint that required I select |
| 5 |
>>> between berkdb and gdbm for an email client. |
| 6 |
>> There shouldn't be a REQUIRED_USE constraint that forces you to select |
| 7 |
>> one or the other. The maintainer should be giving the choice of both, |
| 8 |
>> but if only one can be chosen, the maintainer should make the choice |
| 9 |
>> for you by preferring one of them. Likely gdbm, given berkdb licensing |
| 10 |
>> saga. |
| 11 |
> I'm not sure this makes sense to me. If the package will actually |
| 12 |
> select one implementation out of a set, it makes sense to me that the |
| 13 |
> maintainer for that package makes that choice explicit towards the |
| 14 |
> user. In that case, setting REQUIRED_USE accordingly seems exactly |
| 15 |
> right. The maintainer should set a good default, but if the user's USE |
| 16 |
> settings are inconclusive in getting to the choice of implementation, |
| 17 |
> it's better to whine explicitly than try to guess implicitly what the |
| 18 |
> user wanted. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I tend to agree with this sentiment, explicit over implicit behavior |
| 21 |
ensures better debugging ability and security considerations. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 25 |
>> Replying here because I think said email client is the one I recently |
| 26 |
>> added REQUIRED_USE constraints for. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> Reason I added it is because it greatly simplified the ebuild: it's not |
| 29 |
>> just bdb and gdbm, but also tokyocabinet, qdbm and lmdb, with as result |
| 30 |
>> a lot of if-else-casing which implemented the implicit defaults before. |
| 31 |
>> I didn't realise changing this to REQUIRED_USE resulted in a conflict on |
| 32 |
>> default profiles, because I (obviously) have a package.use entry for the |
| 33 |
>> package. |
| 34 |
> I don't see Mike saying you got it wrong here. Reading your email, I |
| 35 |
> think you did the right thing. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Yup |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 41 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 42 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
Archives