| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2014, David Leverton wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> If, for example, we make subversion an IUSE_RUNTIME flag of git, and |
| 4 |
> some other package depends on dev-vcs/git[-subversion], and the user |
| 5 |
> has the subversion flag disabled for git but happens to have |
| 6 |
> subversion installed anyway, should the dependency be considered |
| 7 |
> satisfied (in which case it's fairly pointless)? Or does it |
| 8 |
> magically get treated like a blocker on dev-vcs/subversion? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
It should be treated like a regular USE flag for dependency |
| 11 |
resolution. So in your example, the dependency would be satisfied. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
More interesting example: Some other package could depend on |
| 14 |
dev-vcs/git[-perl]. "perl" is a regular USE flag in git, but is has |
| 15 |
"subversion? ( perl )" in REQUIRED_USE. Therefore dev-vcs/git[-perl] |
| 16 |
is effectively equivalent to dev-vcs/git[-perl,-subversion]. However, |
| 17 |
the restrictions in current GLEP 62 don't cover this case. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> (I realise that git-svn has more deps than just subversion itself, |
| 20 |
> but it's just an example. :-P) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Similar logic would suggest that "!flag ( ... )" in the package's |
| 23 |
> own dependencies should also be disallowed. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Your arguments are valid, but they apply to regular USE flags, too. |
| 26 |
So I fail to see why we would need special treatment for runtime |
| 27 |
switchable flags here. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If necessary, we can always impose additional restrictions by tree |
| 30 |
policy (as we do for "noblah" flags, for example), but I'd rather not |
| 31 |
restrict what the package manager can do. Especially, if we can simply |
| 32 |
go with normal USE flag logic in one case, but need special casing for |
| 33 |
runtime flags in the other case. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Ulrich |
Archives