1 |
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 09:40:00AM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
2 |
> On 08/12/2015 12:21 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
3 |
> > On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 23:30:31 +1000 |
4 |
> > Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> >> I invite you to reproduce the problem yourself then make the |
6 |
> >> judgement. Using REQUIRED_USE like this makes the affected packages |
7 |
> >> unusable. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > Can't we all (except for the usual suspect) just agree that REQUIRED_USE |
10 |
> > was a mistake, and go back to pkg_pretend? The only justification for |
11 |
> > REQUIRED_USE was that it could allegedly be used in an automated |
12 |
> > fashion, and this hasn't happened. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> |
15 |
> I'm starting to see the light. USE flags and their |
16 |
> combinations/conflicts are almost always package- if not |
17 |
> ebuild-specific. The problem isn't that REQUIRED_USE forces me to do |
18 |
> something, it's that portage will only ever be able to output 45 pages |
19 |
> of garbage rather than telling me how to fix it (which again, depends on |
20 |
> the package/ebuild). |
21 |
> |
22 |
> At the very least, we need to be able to tag REQUIRED_USE conflicts with |
23 |
> human readable error messages. OK, so I know I can't have USE="qt4 qt5" |
24 |
> for this package... but why? How do I fix it? We can do that with |
25 |
> pkg_pretend and a bunch of "if" statements, or maybe there's value in |
26 |
> having the requirements in a variable -- who knows. The former is a lot |
27 |
> simpler to implement. |
28 |
|
29 |
I always wondered why pkg_pretend never caught on. |
30 |
|
31 |
I to can see the advantage of it over REQUIRED_USE; it would allow the |
32 |
package maintainer to give specific error messages about why use flag |
33 |
combinations are invalid for a package. |
34 |
|
35 |
Without really knowing what the opposing viewpoint is, I think |
36 |
pkg_pretend is the better way to go as well. |
37 |
|
38 |
William |