1 |
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 27.01.2017 kell 13:08, kirjutas Kristian |
2 |
Fiskerstrand: |
3 |
> On 01/27/2017 01:01 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: |
4 |
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> |
5 |
> > wrote: |
6 |
> > > Ühel kenal päeval, N, 26.01.2017 kell 22:33, kirjutas Mike |
7 |
> > > Gilbert: |
8 |
> > > > I recently ran into a REQUIRED_USE constraint that required I |
9 |
> > > > select |
10 |
> > > > between berkdb and gdbm for an email client. |
11 |
> > > |
12 |
> > > There shouldn't be a REQUIRED_USE constraint that forces you to |
13 |
> > > select |
14 |
> > > one or the other. The maintainer should be giving the choice of |
15 |
> > > both, |
16 |
> > > but if only one can be chosen, the maintainer should make the |
17 |
> > > choice |
18 |
> > > for you by preferring one of them. Likely gdbm, given berkdb |
19 |
> > > licensing |
20 |
> > > saga. |
21 |
> > |
22 |
> > I'm not sure this makes sense to me. If the package will actually |
23 |
> > select one implementation out of a set, it makes sense to me that |
24 |
> > the |
25 |
> > maintainer for that package makes that choice explicit towards the |
26 |
> > user. In that case, setting REQUIRED_USE accordingly seems exactly |
27 |
> > right. The maintainer should set a good default, but if the user's |
28 |
> > USE |
29 |
> > settings are inconclusive in getting to the choice of |
30 |
> > implementation, |
31 |
> > it's better to whine explicitly than try to guess implicitly what |
32 |
> > the |
33 |
> > user wanted. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> I tend to agree with this sentiment, explicit over implicit behavior |
36 |
> ensures better debugging ability and security considerations. |
37 |
> |
38 |
|
39 |
It breaks the highly sought after "Gentoo is about choice" mantra. |
40 |
In this case, choice to not care and have the best chosen for me. |