| 1 |
On 01/20/2015 10:20 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 09:28:21 -0800 |
| 3 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On 01/20/2015 01:11 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> I think we can only make the safest assumption. Even without |
| 7 |
>>> subslot, if you consider this: || ( a b c d ), with a and c |
| 8 |
>>> installed but package automagically deciding to use only a, how can |
| 9 |
>>> a PM decide whether it is safe to remove a or not after the package |
| 10 |
>>> has been merged ? |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Right, this demonstrates that || deps are ambiguous. So, maybe we |
| 13 |
>> should look at alternatives that are not so ambiguous, such as USE |
| 14 |
>> conditionals and REQUIRED_USE constraints. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> if you assume there are no automagic deps, what is wrong and/or |
| 17 |
> ambiguous with '|| ( a b c d ) means "any of them, and at least all |
| 18 |
> that were available when the package was merged"' ? |
| 19 |
> in the above example this avoids PM breaking people systems by removing |
| 20 |
> 'a' (e.g. if another packages pulls in 'd' that has a blocker against |
| 21 |
> 'a') and as a side effect makes := deps work... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Sure, but when you start using words like "at least all that were |
| 24 |
available when the package was merged", it shows a lack of precision in |
| 25 |
your model. I tend to agree with Ciaran, that || deps are best suited to |
| 26 |
dependencies that can be switched at runtime. For := deps, USE |
| 27 |
conditionals and REQUIRED_USE constraints seem like a better fit. |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Thanks, |
| 30 |
Zac |
Archives