Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 22:30:17
Message-Id: 1499552996.13515.11.camel@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Pre-GLEP RFC: Automated enforcing of REQUIRED_USE constraints by Daniel Campbell
1 On sob, 2017-07-08 at 15:21 -0700, Daniel Campbell wrote:
2 > On 07/08/2017 02:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
3 > > Hi, everyone.
4 > >
5 > > I think the affairs have settled enough and I've finished filling
6 > > in the pre-GLEP for REQUIRED_USE auto-enforcing. It's got all
7 > > the algorithms, rationale and separated reference implementation.
8 > >
9 > > If there are no major concerns raised, I will soon start working
10 > > on writing an optimized implementation for pkgcore/pkgcheck
11 > > and integrating the verification algos with the CI.
12 > >
13 > > The pre-GLEP for review is here:
14 > >
15 > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:ReqUse
16 > >
17 > > TIA.
18 > >
19 >
20 > This has grown quite a bit since first recommended! Great job so far.
21 > Forgive me if I missed something, but wouldn't it be helpful to the user
22 > to let them know when automatically choosing for them? A single line in
23 > a logfile, einfo output, whatever, would be useful for people wondering
24 > how certain packages got pulled in. Users will continue to get errors if
25 > the constraints aren't met (or are wrong), but where will information go
26 > that indicates the automatic solver's choice? You and I can read an
27 > ebuild and guess from the dep spec, but what will a user look at?
28 >
29 > I searched the GLEP page for "log", "einfo", and "output" with no
30 > results. If I've missed something please let me know.
31 >
32 > Thanks for the work that's been put into this so far.
33 >
34
35 Indeed I have entirely skipped the user output problem, and left it
36 purely for package manager's design choice. Do you really feel like we
37 need to explicitly specify it? I think it's best if package manager
38 authors decide how to best fit it into whatever output the PMs already
39 have.
40
41
42 --
43 Best regards,
44 Michał Górny

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies