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