From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 10:29:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1496132988.1617.3.camel@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170530094245.40e1cf64@gentoo.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6803 bytes --]
On wto, 2017-05-30 at 09:42 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2017 23:23:55 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > On pon, 2017-05-29 at 20:00 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > On Mon, 29 May 2017 17:33:13 +0200
> > > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > > It can also be used with multi-flag ??, ^^ and || constraints,
> > > > i.e.:
> > > >
> > > > - ?? means that at most one of the flags can be enabled. If user
> > > > configuration causes more than one of the flags to be enabled,
> > > > additional flags are implicitly disabled (masked) to satisfy
> > > > the constraint.
> > > >
> > > > - || means that at least one of the flags must be enabled. If user
> > > > configuration causes none of the flags to be enabled, one of them
> > > > is enabled implicitly (forced).
> > > >
> > > > - ^^ means that exactly one of the flags must be enabled. The
> > > > behavior is a combination of both above constraints.
> > > >
> > > > The automated solving of USE constraints would require the
> > > > developers to consider the implicit effect of the constraints
> > > > they are writing.
> > >
> > >
> > > Can you provide an efficient algorithm for the above syntax?
> > > That is, given a set of +/- useflags forced by user, output the set
> > > of effective useflags (or a rant if it is inconsistent).
> >
> > I'd rather leave that to people who are good with algorithms. I find
> > the whole thing scary but I don't really see a sane alternative here.
>
> Well, Ciaran is a bit extreme with his implementation thing, but
> he's right in the sense that here you're really repeating the same
> mistakes that you're trying to fix. REQUIRED_USE was invented the same
> way: Let's add some nice syntax to express dependency between useflags.
> Ship it. Oh crap, this requires to solve SAT. Well, nothing good can be
> done here, let's spit out to the user to chose for herself.
> With your proposal, it seems to me you're simply postponing the problem
> but not fixing it: Instead of spiting that one has to enable some
> useflags, you'd spit that one has to specify how to solve the
> constraint by expressing some preference. In the end, this'll add
> another layer of complexity in both PM and the user configuration but
> would not solve the root of the problem which is that no-one knows how
> to automatically find a solution to those constraints and PM can't take
> any action without user input.
>
> You can't get away with "There is a solution but I'll leave that to
> people who are good with algorithms": That is roughly the definition of
> NP. If the person writing a proposal for a new feature (which is thus
> supposedly the one person that has thoroughly thought the problem) can't
> at least roughly draft how to implement it, that doesn't give much faith
> in that it can be done properly. It certainly does not mean said person
> is not good with algorithms but rather that the problem is very likely
> to be a hard one. Not hard as in you need a Ph.D. in algorithms to
> solve it but the kind of hardness almost every cryptographic algorithm
> used today, and in the foreseeable future, relies on.
That's why I'm sending this to the mailing list as a RFC, not a proposal
to vote on. It solves a defined set of problems, and gives other chance
to improve it and turn it into a complete solution. It's not like it's
going anywhere before it's implemented as a PoC and tested.
> > Yes, they do. They improve readability, compared to cascades of plain
> > constraints. I'm pretty sure users will be happier to see 'you need to
> > select one of foo, bar, baz' than 'if foo is disabled, then ...'
>
> If the point is to automatically propose a solution, then who cares
> about readability? Users won't even see that message.
But users should be able to reasonably figure out what happened,
exactly. There's a difference in quality between the two messages:
a. 'foo is enabled; bar, got disabled',
b. 'one of foo, bar, baz had to be enabled => you chose foo'.
Not saying you can't figure it out. Saying in a more complex case,
grouping constraints like this is helpful.
>
> Note that there are plenty of ways to add determinism in your proposal,
> but it *has* to be specified otherwise PM can't rely on it. For
> instance, you can say that in an unsatisfied || block then the
> left-most useflag is automatically enabled. || then becomes some
> syntactic sugar around unary operators: || ( a ... ) becomes equivalent
> to '!...? ( a )'. You can do the same for other operators.
>
>
> Sidenote: I just realized '|| ( a b c )' with left-most preference might
> be better since we are not dealing with binary variables but ternary
> ones (user disabled, user enabled, unspecified). 'USE="" || ( a b c )'
> should evaluate to 'a', 'USE="-a" || ( a b c )' should evaluate to 'b'.
> I don't see how to rewrite that with pure implications.
The ternary concept is not exactly in line with how we handle USE flags
now. It's more like multi-layer binary. My proposal solved the problem
you were trying to solve via establishing priorities -- I find it
simpler to reorder the flags and use binary logic than to invent a more
complex logic to solve the same problem.
> > > The point is to express some preference, below you suggest to leave
> > > that to the user, but what about leaving that to the ebuild
> > > developer?
> >
> > Well, I don't find that a killer feature but I don't see a reason to
> > take it away either. Either way we have some risks, especially when
> > USE dependencies and blockers are involved. In both scenarios, I find
> > it less risky to let user control the order than to rely on all
> > developers respecting the same preference order. Not saying the
> > latter wouldn't hurt anyway but the users would at least have an easy
> > way out.
>
> They already have an easy way out if you strip that part out of your
> proposal: emerge will show some automatically enabled useflags; users
> will notice and will fill package.use to disable the automatically
> enabled useflag if they don't want it.
>
> > > That way, e.g., || can be rewritten as implications: '|| ( a b c )'
> > > becomes '!b? !c? a' meaning if none is enabled then a is
> > > automatically enabled.
> >
> > Unless you are planning to cache the rewritten forms, I don't see
> > a problem, really. You just reorder the flags according to the
> > apparent preference before rewriting.
>
> It's not a problem of rewriting or caching the result but a problem of
> having a deterministic way to auto-enable required useflags.
>
> Bests,
>
> Alexis.
>
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 988 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-30 8:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 111+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-29 15:33 [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE) Michał Górny
2017-05-29 16:30 ` Kent Fredric
2017-05-29 16:44 ` Michał Górny
2017-05-29 18:00 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-05-29 21:23 ` Michał Górny
2017-05-29 21:31 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2017-05-29 22:01 ` Ulrich Mueller
2017-05-29 22:05 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2017-05-30 7:47 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-05-30 8:05 ` Ulrich Mueller
2017-05-30 8:10 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-05-30 7:42 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-05-30 8:22 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2017-05-30 8:46 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-05-30 8:56 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2017-05-30 9:25 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-05-30 12:00 ` Ulrich Mueller
2017-05-30 14:33 ` Michał Górny
2017-05-30 15:33 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-05-30 18:11 ` Michał Górny
2017-05-30 18:46 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-05-31 6:55 ` Michał Górny
2017-05-31 7:24 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2017-05-31 7:34 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-05-31 7:35 ` Michał Górny
2017-05-31 7:51 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2017-05-31 7:54 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-05-31 7:56 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-05-31 7:32 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-05-31 8:03 ` Michał Górny
2017-05-31 8:38 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-05-31 13:04 ` Michał Górny
2017-05-31 17:39 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-05-31 19:02 ` Michał Górny
2017-05-31 22:52 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2017-06-01 8:55 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-01 21:31 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-02 6:37 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-02 11:18 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-02 13:49 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-02 11:27 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-02 13:55 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-02 15:09 ` [gentoo-dev] " Martin Vaeth
2017-06-03 11:00 ` [gentoo-dev] " Alexis Ballier
2017-06-03 15:33 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-03 16:58 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-04 8:59 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-05 7:55 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-05 14:10 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-05 17:24 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-05 18:10 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-05 18:15 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2017-06-06 12:08 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-06 17:39 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-07 6:49 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-07 8:17 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-07 9:27 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-07 9:56 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-09 9:19 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-09 11:41 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-09 12:54 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-09 14:16 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-09 16:21 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-11 16:05 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-12 9:08 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-12 19:17 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-13 10:27 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-13 22:13 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-14 9:06 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-14 12:24 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-14 13:16 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-14 13:57 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-14 14:09 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-15 15:59 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-15 16:07 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-15 16:13 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2017-06-15 16:19 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-15 16:22 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2017-06-15 16:30 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-15 16:32 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2017-06-15 16:37 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-15 16:45 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2017-06-15 16:55 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-15 17:04 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2017-06-15 17:30 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-15 17:48 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2017-06-15 18:09 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-15 17:38 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-15 18:05 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-14 14:28 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-02 12:16 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-02 13:57 ` Michał Górny
2017-06-02 14:56 ` [gentoo-dev] " Martin Vaeth
2017-06-02 15:19 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2017-06-02 16:26 ` Martin Vaeth
2017-06-02 18:31 ` Martin Vaeth
2017-06-02 1:17 ` [gentoo-dev] " A. Wilcox
2017-06-02 1:28 ` Rich Freeman
2017-06-02 1:33 ` A. Wilcox
2017-06-02 5:08 ` Michał Górny
2017-05-31 12:38 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2017-05-30 21:13 ` [gentoo-dev] " Kent Fredric
2017-05-30 8:29 ` Michał Górny [this message]
2017-05-30 9:34 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-05-30 14:12 ` Michał Górny
2017-05-29 19:24 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2017-05-29 19:42 ` Michał Górny
2017-05-29 19:44 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2017-06-05 8:26 ` Alexis Ballier
2017-06-09 12:35 ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2017-06-09 12:42 ` Michał Górny
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=1496132988.1617.3.camel@gentoo.org \
--to=mgorny@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.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