From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EACE1391DB for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 08:28:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 573C7E0D47; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 08:28:24 +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 76AB4E0CF3 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 08:28:23 +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 5FCAE33FFF1 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 08:28:21 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1406363297.20388.29.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: USE flags in virtuals, to allow a specific provider to be determined From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:28:17 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20140725211828.11d89a37@googlemail.com> 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> <1406319173.20388.27.camel@gentoo.org> <20140725211828.11d89a37@googlemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail 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: ce078a9d-9f78-4c20-af68-8b0ca55b13dc X-Archives-Hash: af99c747f538697806001a10003cdc17 El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 21:18 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 22:12:53 +0200 > Pacho Ramos wrote: > > Ah, ok, I was wondering why REQUIRED_USE was implemented then :/, I > > guess it was for simplifying ebuilds? > > It was a historical mistake: originally we were going to use > pkg_pretend for this. But claims were made that this would break some > mythical auto-building systems, and that something machine-readable was > needed. Unfortunately the Council bought this, and put through > REQUIRED_USE without a reference implementation. > > Needless to say, the end result is something that isn't human-readable, > and isn't used by any mythical auto-building systems. > > (Incidentally, Exherbo has a both human- and machine-readable > implementation, which *is* used by an auto-building system, but the > syntax won't meet Gentoo approval...) > Maybe REQUIRED_USE could allow us to set an error message for each line to allow us to instruct PMs about what message should they who to the users :/ (it would show our message that should be more clear, a bit like we are able to do with "die 'message'")