1 |
On 3 April 2015 at 05:32, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Out of curiosity, what is keeping us from having USE flag dependencies |
4 |
> handled dynamically, in the same way that package dependencies are? |
5 |
> If portage can figure out that I need libxml2 installed even if I |
6 |
> don't put it in /var/lib/portage/world, why can't it figure out that I |
7 |
> need it built with USE=icu even if I don't put that in |
8 |
> /etc/portage/package.use? |
9 |
> |
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
I'd say its more a concept issue than an application issue. |
13 |
|
14 |
USE flags often signify a need for code to be recompiled to grant the |
15 |
feature. |
16 |
|
17 |
How do you disambiguate between USE flags that *do* need a recompile to |
18 |
enable their power, and those that *dont* need a recompile to enable their |
19 |
power. |
20 |
|
21 |
Or even clarify to portage that, "The older version of X that didn't have |
22 |
IUSE=foo, actually had feature foo, but just didn't have the use flag" vs |
23 |
"The older version of X that didn't have IUSE=foo, didnt have feature foo |
24 |
or the IUSE". |
25 |
|
26 |
Splitting this logic into an explicit bump kinda avoids the need for some |
27 |
of these questions. |
28 |
|
29 |
That last one however I'd like to see improved, because I often see new USE |
30 |
flags turn up on packages, and I have no idea of knowing "Is this useflag |
31 |
adding a feature, or exposing an existing one" |
32 |
|
33 |
"Is this new useflag defaulted on because it already existed, or is it |
34 |
defaulted on because its a new feature and its awesome" |
35 |
|
36 |
"Is this new useflag defaulted off because it didnt already exist, or did |
37 |
it exist and were disabling the feature because its bad" |
38 |
|
39 |
.... Ad Infinitum. |
40 |
|
41 |
|
42 |
|
43 |
|
44 |
-- |
45 |
Kent |
46 |
|
47 |
*KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |