| 1 |
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:09:22 +0200 |
| 2 |
Fabio Erculiani <lxnay@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 4:57 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Why not introduce a global useflag such as "suggested-deps" which |
| 8 |
> > complies with GLEP 62 meaning it will be in IUSE_RUNTIME. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> How do you manage to fix the PDEPEND "identity disorder" problem then? |
| 12 |
> Teaching devs to move to GLEP 62 is much harder than just telling them |
| 13 |
> to move dep strings to more appropriate locations. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Much harder? So, devs today don't know how USE flags work? Or do you |
| 16 |
implying that devs should know bare technical details of package |
| 17 |
manager implementation? Or is it just an-ass argument to support |
| 18 |
an ass-thesis? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Moreover, your solution just makes the USE flags abuse situation |
| 21 |
> worse: there are packages that use USE flags just to include extra, |
| 22 |
> optional packages in the dependencies... See USE=bluetooth in |
| 23 |
> net-misc/networkmanager for example (this is what I mean with USE |
| 24 |
> flags abuse, actually). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
No, it fixes it. It enables those packages to use the same solution, |
| 27 |
fixing its downsides. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> I'm not saying that SDEPEND is the best one-size-fits-all solution but |
| 30 |
> you may agree that's the simplest and most effective one. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
pkg_postinst() is simpler. USE flags are simple and very effective, yet |
| 33 |
incorrect. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
An effective SDEPEND implementation is definitely nowhere close |
| 36 |
to simple. Nor is presenting those dependencies to users. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Best regards, |
| 40 |
Michał Górny |
Archives