| 1 |
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 20:30:38 +0100 |
| 2 |
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:37:15 +0100 |
| 5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > For example, if you allow use.mask or use.force in mixins, you can |
| 7 |
> > > end up having unsatisfiable deps that repoman will never catch. |
| 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 |
> > That's why if you do such a thing, you would have to declare a regular |
| 14 |
> > profile using this mix-in for repoman to test. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> still that doesn't account for a 'ihatelennart' mixin masking udev & |
| 18 |
> systemd and a 'ilovelennart' mixin masking udev & eudev and an user |
| 19 |
> enabling them both |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That's why they can define blockers/conflicts. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> why not let such a stupid example be, it is similar to package.mask |
| 24 |
> users can already fill, but I'm pretty sure more subtle breakage will |
| 25 |
> appear |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> repoman will test n out of 2^n (or n!) possibilities the way you |
| 28 |
> suggest, which is basically nothing when n is big |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Are you going somewhere in particular with this or just arguing for the |
| 31 |
sake of arguing? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Best regards, |
| 35 |
Michał Górny |
| 36 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives