Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] has_version and built_with_use ignore package.provided

[Edward Catmur]

On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 12:37 +0100, Paul Bredbury wrote:
> > if built_with_use dev-util/subversion nowebdav; then
>
> So Portage needs an "end to USE flags whose first 2 characters are 'no'"
> day, in order to keep its complexity bearable. Which is already known,
> in the dev manual (whose URL I'm too lazy to look up right now).

Fair enough; no* USE flags are an abomination. They're going to be
around for a while yet, though.
How about sci-libs/scipy-0.4.9:

    if built_with_use sci-libs/lapack-atlas ifc; then
        echo
        ewarn  "${PN} needs consistency among Fortran compilers."
        eerror "lapack-atlas was compiled with IFC, whereas"
        eerror "blas-atlas and scipy use the GNU compiler."
        eerror "please re-emerge lapack-atlas with 'USE=\"-ifc\"'."
        echo
        die "Inconsistent Fortran compilers"
    fi

> > The big problem with the Russell definite designator is that
> > it is not self-dual under negation (and its dual under negation is not
> > useful); a trinary definite designator /is/ self-dual.
>
> That's useful info in a school exam. The flaw is, this is not a maths
> quiz set by a university professor (I went through all that at uni ~13
> years ago).
No; maths is a tool to make things clearer.
> It's a computer program. Run by people. Who expect it to
> make sense.
Does conflating two conditions to one output make sense?
> These people couldn't care less whether it's "self-dual under
> negation".
But they do expect that if "built_with_use app-foo/bar shiney" returns
FALSE, then app-foo/bar was built with the "shiney" USE flag unset. Not
that it wasn't built at all. Or that Portage has no idea how it was
built.
> What they care about is whether it gives the right
> answer, or the opposite of the right answer (or equally worse, falls
> over in a big heap)
Insufficient information is an error condition.
> when the right answer should be obvious to it (which
> is what my patches do, although this fact has so far been glossed over).
Paranoia much?
>
> The attractive elegance of logical dualism
I think you mean "duality".
> is *not* an excuse for
> programs falling over in a big heap when the correct answer in certain
> circumstances (bug #139693) is obvious.
And in other circumstances?

Ed

Sorry for the spam, all. I'll shut up now.

-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list