| 1 |
On 08/12/2015 12:21 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 23:30:31 +1000 |
| 3 |
> Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> I invite you to reproduce the problem yourself then make the |
| 5 |
>> judgement. Using REQUIRED_USE like this makes the affected packages |
| 6 |
>> unusable. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Can't we all (except for the usual suspect) just agree that REQUIRED_USE |
| 9 |
> was a mistake, and go back to pkg_pretend? The only justification for |
| 10 |
> REQUIRED_USE was that it could allegedly be used in an automated |
| 11 |
> fashion, and this hasn't happened. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'm starting to see the light. USE flags and their |
| 15 |
combinations/conflicts are almost always package- if not |
| 16 |
ebuild-specific. The problem isn't that REQUIRED_USE forces me to do |
| 17 |
something, it's that portage will only ever be able to output 45 pages |
| 18 |
of garbage rather than telling me how to fix it (which again, depends on |
| 19 |
the package/ebuild). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
At the very least, we need to be able to tag REQUIRED_USE conflicts with |
| 22 |
human readable error messages. OK, so I know I can't have USE="qt4 qt5" |
| 23 |
for this package... but why? How do I fix it? We can do that with |
| 24 |
pkg_pretend and a bunch of "if" statements, or maybe there's value in |
| 25 |
having the requirements in a variable -- who knows. The former is a lot |
| 26 |
simpler to implement. |
Archives