Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Dynamic USE dependencies
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 10:13:40
Message-Id: CAGfcS_nzwsJOfy=iniNi3MFsLFCKUPM5XBQ2Y6-eCu6xgAcX1g@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Dynamic USE dependencies by Martin Vaeth
1 On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de> wrote:
2 > Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
3 >>
4 >> Keep in mind that keeping track of past decisions made by portage does
5 >> not require user-editable config files in /etc.
6 >
7 > Yes, but you might not always agree with portage's decisions,
8 > and the resolution might be non-unique.
9
10 How is this different with USE flags vs package installs? The
11 satisfaction of virtuals could have many possible solutions. We make
12 it deterministic by defaulting to the first option listed for the
13 first package that happens to get installed. If you install a series
14 of packages in various orders from a fresh install, you could get
15 different packages installed to satisfy virtuals.
16
17 The solution we provide for package installs is that the user can just
18 emerge a dependency manually if they have a preference, and then
19 portage will stick with it unless there is a conflict.
20
21 For dynamic USE flags I've already proposed two mechanisms to give the
22 user control:
23 1. They can STILL populate /etc/portage/package.use and make explicit
24 choices, which portage will follow.
25 2. They could manually install a package with one-time specified USE
26 flags, and portage would stick with these as long as they don't create
27 a conflict.
28
29 Why do we need another mechanism to control what flags a package gets
30 installed with other than these two, such as making more detailed
31 cache data user-editable?
32
33 --
34 Rich

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Dynamic USE dependencies Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de>