public inbox for gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>
To: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>
Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:46:47 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100331104647.GD11663@hrair> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19379.6773.901690.630124@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2096 bytes --]

Note that while I inadvertantly cross posted (I was intending on 
cc'ing council@gentoo.org, not the ml), doubt they need to be cc'd 
further- my original attention was to effectively ensure they were 
paying aware of the details of this so that when I took it to them 
folk were informed.

CC'ing gentoo-council so folk following it there know it moved 
over to -dev.  Your discussion of devmanual relevance needs some -dev 
consensus anyways before the council should be deciding on it.

Also the cross posting is making betelgeuse cry anyways (and pissing 
off my procmail setup) ;)


On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:48:37AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Brian Harring wrote:
> 
> > Roughly, VALID_USE is a list of constraints stating what the allowed
> > use flag combinations are for this pkg. If you think of normal
> > depdencies (I must have openssl and python merged prior), it's the
> > same machinery.
> 
> Maybe we should first discuss if we want to drop the following
> rule [1] which your proposal seems to contradict:

Not just my proposal- council contradicted it via even letting 
pkg_pretend into EAPI3 (now EAPI4):

http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org/msg00493.html


> | Occasionally, ebuilds will have conflicting USE flags for
> | functionality. Checking for them and returning an error is not a
> | viable solution. Instead, you must pick one of the USE flags in
> | conflict to favour.
> 
> [1] <http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/use-flags/>

I honestly consider the ebuild silently making decisions on the user's
behalf *worse*.  Consider if openoffice silently made decisions like 
that- 4 hours later it'll wind up choosing the option you didn't 
really want and you'll be in a foul mood.

Frankly is the devmanual even relevant on at this point beyond good 
practices btw?  Last I looked through it, there was a rather unhealthy 
mix of good policy that we follow, and policy that isn't relevant 
anymore- in need of some cleanup at the very least.


~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2010-03-31 10:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-03-31  9:20 [gentoo-council] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative Brian Harring
2010-03-31  9:48 ` Ulrich Mueller
2010-03-31 10:46   ` Brian Harring [this message]
2010-03-31 10:16 ` Alistair Bush
2010-03-31 10:57   ` Brian Harring

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100331104647.GD11663@hrair \
    --to=ferringb@gmail.com \
    --cc=gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org \
    --cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
    --cc=ulm@gentoo.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox