| 1 |
On 01/20/2015 12:05 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:02:38 -0800 |
| 3 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 01/20/2015 09:25 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:41:21 +0100 |
| 6 |
>>> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>> Seriously? You expect users to figure out [1] what combinations of |
| 8 |
>>>> USE flags will work for such an ebuild? |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> Why don't we just admit that Brian was horribly wrong, scrap |
| 11 |
>>> REQUIRED_USE in the next EAPI, and go back to the sensible, |
| 12 |
>>> tried-and-tested way of doing it that I proposed to begin with? |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> Regardless of whether or not (or how) we choose to apply REQUIRED_USE |
| 15 |
>> to various cases, I think we should keep REQUIRED_USE around, since |
| 16 |
>> having a machine-readable representation of these constraints can |
| 17 |
>> potentially be extremely useful to dependency resolvers. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> [evidence needed] |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
REQUIRED_USE is already successfully used to apply constraints that |
| 23 |
would otherwise need to be enforced by executing shell code in |
| 24 |
pkg_pretend. I think it's obvious that the declarative and |
| 25 |
machine-readable nature of REQUIRED_USE make if preferable to using |
| 26 |
pkg_pretend in many cases. |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Thanks, |
| 29 |
Zac |
Archives