From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-66835-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D60413877A
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 20:13:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A20EE1C16;
	Fri, 25 Jul 2014 20:12:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89E04E1C0F
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 20:12:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.223] (113.139.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es [87.217.139.113])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: pacho)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DEE533FD9B
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 20:12:57 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1406319173.20388.27.camel@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: USE flags in virtuals, to allow a specific
 provider to be determined
From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 22:12:53 +0200
In-Reply-To: <53D2B60D.3040402@gentoo.org>
References: <53D2A6C8.9060900@gentoo.org>
	 <20140725210438.0703f164@gentp.lnet> <53D2AEC3.2080600@gentoo.org>
	 <20140725214402.7a65a988@gentp.lnet>
	 <20140725204649.105e8641@googlemail.com>
	 <1406317889.20388.25.camel@gentoo.org> <53D2B60D.3040402@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.4 
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Archives-Salt: 10331872-ec48-46c0-b2fe-e3c71d591f30
X-Archives-Hash: 69bcdf234e71614c0b56ecd3c3ae1c63

El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:54 -0400, Ian Stakenvicius escribió:
> On 25/07/14 03:51 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 20:46 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> >> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:44:02 +0200 Luis Ressel <aranea@aixah.de>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Okay, I didn't think of that. I'm not sure if the blocker deps
> >>> or the REQUIRED_USE would be more helpful for Portage, but
> >>> generally I think that the REQUIRED_USE error message is quite
> >>> hard to understand for unexperienced users -- much more so than
> >>> the error generated by a blocker dep.
> >> 
> >> ...and the fix for that is to scrap REQUIRED_USE and use
> >> pkg_pretend instead.
> >> 
> > 
> > Could you give an example to let us see how pkg_pretend could be
> > used to achieve the same as REQUIRED_USE?
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > 
> 
> pkg_pretend() {
> 	if use heimdal && use mit-krb5; then
> 		eerror "Please set only one of the use following flags:"
> 		eerror "heimdal, mit-krb5"
> 		die "conflicting use flags set"
> 	fi
> }

Ah, ok, I was wondering why REQUIRED_USE was implemented then :/, I
guess it was for simplifying ebuilds?