| 1 |
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:12:32 -0800 |
| 2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> >> Regardless of whether or not (or how) we choose to apply |
| 4 |
> >> REQUIRED_USE to various cases, I think we should keep REQUIRED_USE |
| 5 |
> >> around, since having a machine-readable representation of these |
| 6 |
> >> constraints can potentially be extremely useful to dependency |
| 7 |
> >> resolvers. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > [evidence needed] |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> REQUIRED_USE is already successfully used to apply constraints that |
| 12 |
> would otherwise need to be enforced by executing shell code in |
| 13 |
> pkg_pretend. I think it's obvious that the declarative and |
| 14 |
> machine-readable nature of REQUIRED_USE make if preferable to using |
| 15 |
> pkg_pretend in many cases. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It's not obvious at all. The evidence so far suggests that good human |
| 18 |
readable messages are important, and that if we're ever going to get |
| 19 |
automated resolution then we'll need a new not-SAT-based format anyway. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives