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 1NwvTz-0005RQ-RS for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:49:12 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7518AE0BE6; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:49:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EB67E0B8B; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:48:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BDC71B4078; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:48:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.077 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.077 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.522, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id awUmyeQ0p5ym; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:48:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pw0-f49.google.com (mail-pw0-f49.google.com [209.85.160.49]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B02E1B4058; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:48:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pwj2 with SMTP id 2so10560377pwj.36 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:48:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:date:from:to:cc :subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=AJ9zT+jHDH8lSY8JAF53zIp1pxtN0keDk9LPXdq8dew=; b=Bla2CfT+JlO+7e6nZqwEsxEAiwvFYTPD7ZguJDKWguIXE6qowdcR+O+H4ZVLHRPFZv vINcQFbM48/XHuCjxD7FVQ2NS+EIPpxlzqS0ciFAOegpEtzZEBopdaHpekz+d8pNuD05 TGXsAlfqxLZOY+JJrntCrPQD0IPm8ZHfQD1N0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=XOTw0fpe3gFKHSqKGfl4BpqAH/mHt9sOTmn2XKIak6FAYTRL4WPKL9QtUEWEzhRamE 4pSE9YtLyclg+hnPBejxi9nW49nRuC6/ezbR0q/O6B9FPVloX7DKlLXcwhINUG2tAKx4 yMYCYXE2ys7PMpMdtf/WxnXKE0gtCTZBx/Wmk= Received: by 10.140.179.20 with SMTP id b20mr3051477rvf.246.1270032520898; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:48:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com (c-67-171-128-62.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [67.171.128.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 20sm5825753pzk.7.2010.03.31.03.48.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:48:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:46:47 -0700 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 03:46:47 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: Ulrich Mueller Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] pkg_pretend USE validation and VALID_USE alternative Message-ID: <20100331104647.GD11663@hrair> References: <20100331092035.GA11663@hrair> <19379.6773.901690.630124@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> 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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GpGaEY17fSl8rd50" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19379.6773.901690.630124@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Archives-Salt: 7646fa70-cb8d-45fc-9554-b311b58ea7af X-Archives-Hash: 94e74eb3abec8740a5bd7d6c9acf2d71 --GpGaEY17fSl8rd50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Note that while I inadvertantly cross posted (I was intending on=20 cc'ing council@gentoo.org, not the ml), doubt they need to be cc'd=20 further- my original attention was to effectively ensure they were=20 paying aware of the details of this so that when I took it to them=20 folk were informed. CC'ing gentoo-council so folk following it there know it moved=20 over to -dev. Your discussion of devmanual relevance needs some -dev=20 consensus anyways before the council should be deciding on it. Also the cross posting is making betelgeuse cry anyways (and pissing=20 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: >=20 > > 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. >=20 > 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=20 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. >=20 > [1] I honestly consider the ebuild silently making decisions on the user's behalf *worse*. Consider if openoffice silently made decisions like=20 that- 4 hours later it'll wind up choosing the option you didn't=20 really want and you'll be in a foul mood. Frankly is the devmanual even relevant on at this point beyond good=20 practices btw? Last I looked through it, there was a rather unhealthy=20 mix of good policy that we follow, and policy that isn't relevant=20 anymore- in need of some cleanup at the very least. ~harring --GpGaEY17fSl8rd50 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkuzKBcACgkQsiLx3HvNzgcCWQCghJT/EXLofyPZpzJJ41PMKQwW sE0AoKuyU0AbduBuHPvWX3cObMkVBXzj =aJ6L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --GpGaEY17fSl8rd50--