From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Nwvj9-0007Le-2K for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:04:51 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 23183E0C80; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:04:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1iwww1.kph.uni-mainz.de (a1iwww1.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D32E0C4A for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:04:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.92]) by a1iwww1.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.0/8.13.4) with ESMTP id o2VB4drA024981; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:04:39 +0200 Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.3/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o2VB4df1006184; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:04:39 +0200 Received: (from ulm@localhost) by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o2VB4dQk006181; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:04:39 +0200 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-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19379.11335.146404.478975@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:04:39 +0200 To: Brian Harring Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative In-Reply-To: <20100331104647.GD11663@hrair> References: <20100331092035.GA11663@hrair> <19379.6773.901690.630124@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20100331104647.GD11663@hrair> X-Mailer: VM 8.1.0-beta under 23.1.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) From: Ulrich Mueller X-Archives-Salt: 4908975e-dc6c-4995-93dc-e54267e73608 X-Archives-Hash: 04fd581970a64911e73922ea44b10bfd >>>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Brian Harring wrote: > 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 It says "displaying conflicting USE flags" which doesn't necessarily imply that the ebuild should fail. > I honestly consider the ebuild silently making decisions on the > user's behalf *worse*. Right, this is exactly what we should decide on, before talking about possible implementations. We already have enough issues with circular dependencies, and I'm sceptical about adding additional failures on USE flag conflicts. Display a warning, but don't error out. Ulrich