| 1 |
On 3/3/06, Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> > It gets the point across effectively. I don't see your problem. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> What kind of point does it get across, exactly? That flipping a coin or |
| 5 |
> forcing your personal preference is a better solution than letting users |
| 6 |
> decide what kind of functionality they prefer? Don't you think users do know |
| 7 |
> better? What's the point of such policy? You call forcing random feature on |
| 8 |
> users instead of letting them decide QA? I don't. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I agree. Adopting a policy like this is a low quality solution for |
| 11 |
servers. I've no opinion on how this affects desktops, but packages |
| 12 |
for servers need to be precise. A policy that says "if two USE |
| 13 |
flags deliver the same benefits, but conflict, pick one" is fine. But |
| 14 |
saying "flip a coin" ... how on earth is that "quality"? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
And how the heck is it going to work w/ USE-based defaults? This |
| 17 |
creates a situation where package (b) cannot trust that a feature is |
| 18 |
enabled in package (a), even if package (a) was built with the |
| 19 |
required USE flags. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'll go as far as saying that right now I'm embarrased that it looks |
| 22 |
like this is going to become a Gentoo policy in its current form. |
| 23 |
You're absolutely *not* creating a better user experience. You're |
| 24 |
brushing a problem under the carpet ... and making it the users' |
| 25 |
problem when they wonder why the built a package with a USE flag and |
| 26 |
the package still doesn't work as they expect. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Until Portage supports resolving conflicting USE flags when the |
| 29 |
deptree is built, the practical thing to do is for ebuilds w/ |
| 30 |
conflicting USE flags to bail. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Best regards, |
| 33 |
Stu |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives