Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] erroneous behavior in 2-style USE dependencies?

[Michael Lienhardt]

On 6/16/20 11:59 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 6/16/20 6:38 PM, Michael Lienhardt wrote:
>> With the first version of DEPEND, emerge succeed:
>> # emerge -pv app-misc/dummy-master
>>
>> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
>>
>> Calculating dependencies... done!
>> [ebuild  N     ] app-misc/dummy-slave-2::gentoo  USE="-static-libs" 0 KiB
>> [ebuild  N     ] app-misc/dummy-master-1::gentoo  USE="-static-libs" 0 KiB
>
> This success is expected, yes? Do you suggest to change the behavior
> somehow?

The way I interpret the PMS, this success is not expected:
 the atom ">=app-misc/dummy-slave-1" matches the cpv "app-misc/dummy-slave-1" which does not contains the use flag 'static-libs',
 and thus I expected a 'missing use flag' error.
I'm not suggesting to change the behavior of emerge, I'm saying that:
 - the way I read the PMS, I expect behavior A, but in practice, I see behavior B.
 - what does the portage devs / PMS gurus think about that?
    - is my understanding of the PMS wrong, and it actually says "behavior B is expected"?
    - if yes, where did I fail in my understanding?
    - if no, should emerge or the PMS be updated so they both describe the same behavior?
 - I will implement your ruling in my tool, which I try to match as closely as possible to the PMS

>> With the second version of DEPEND, emerge fails:
>> # emerge -pv app-misc/dummy-master
>>
>> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
>>
>> Calculating dependencies... done!
>>
>> emerge: there are no ebuilds built with USE flags to satisfy "=app-misc/dummy-slave-1[static-libs?]".
>> !!! One of the following packages is required to complete your request:
>> - app-misc/dummy-slave-1::gentoo (Missing IUSE: static-libs)
>> (dependency required by "app-misc/dummy-master-1::gentoo" [ebuild])
>> (dependency required by "app-misc/dummy-master" [argument])
>
> This failure is expected, yes? Do you suggest to change the behavior
> somehow?

The way I interpret the PMS, this failure is expected.

I'm sorry if I'm not always clear, I try to be, and many thanks to take the time to answer my (unexpected and strange) questions.

Best,
Michael