From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-63603-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 D471A138247
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:28:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B2E31E0A99;
	Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:28:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from georges.telenet-ops.be (georges.telenet-ops.be [195.130.137.68])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 894E8E0A7D
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:28:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TOMWIJ-GENTOO ([94.226.55.127])
	by georges.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp
	id pxU71m00C2khLEN06xU7XR; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:28:07 +0100
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:27:11 +0100
From: Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>
To: peter@stuge.se
Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Please consider removing use.stable.mask and
 package.use.stable.mask
Message-ID: <20131115222711.45f706cb@TOMWIJ-GENTOO>
In-Reply-To: <20131115210904.7385.qmail@stuge.se>
References: <slrnl86l1s.j7e.vaeth@lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de>
	<CAEdQ38GuN0s8K9SLbevhTL6AM=1oWKdpjGVGiR2JOC1mQ1VdxQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131115210033.4fee8516@TOMWIJ-GENTOO>
	<CAEdQ38GLpxFnw6VvfeiEMtWwZbRiUK-3tHT5dd7JuZVQD_QAFA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20131115215333.4db15ea8@TOMWIJ-GENTOO>
	<20131115210904.7385.qmail@stuge.se>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.22; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
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-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1;
 boundary="Sig_/6aeocn5o2WG4HWR9FWT1ZwA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Archives-Salt: fb038a53-8db4-4dc2-b328-bc528dc70a3e
X-Archives-Hash: f3b25363f1c7ac0dabcf6914a93555d1

--Sig_/6aeocn5o2WG4HWR9FWT1ZwA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:09:04 +0100
Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:

> Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > Does replacing this "explicit behavior" by "implicit behavior" make
> > sense for the users in general?
>=20
> Please don't warp the words. Maybe I misunderstand, but it seems like
> that's what you're doing.
>=20
> I'll try to clarify:
>=20
> With explicit I was refering to allowing manual setting and unsetting
> of USE flags, keywords and masks.
>=20
> With implicit I was refering to those same things happening
> automatically. USE flags set or unset automatically, keywords set or
> unset automatically, masks set or unset automatically - as a result
> of something or other.
>=20
> Any such automations significantly diminish the value of the explicit
> knobs and are counter-intuitive.

"implicit" in the context of this sub thread is it being present as
part of another choice, whereas "explicit" makes it a separate choice.
Currently the behavior is explicit because you have to break the
dependency cycle yourself and decide how to, whereas making it implicit
would solve it; in one or another particular way you'd be unaware of.

> If someone is given a mechanism to control which USE flags are set or
> unset then it's just stupid to go "around" those settings.

This example was about a circular dependency, not about USE flags.

> I understand the temptation to make things happen automatically for
> ease of development, and that is perfectly fine as long as those
> automations aren't exposed to users.

And that's the question, it is the hard part of figuring it out... :)

(To be clear: In the context of the sub thread answering the example.)

--=20
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

--Sig_/6aeocn5o2WG4HWR9FWT1ZwA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJShpGvAAoJEJWyH81tNOV91WUH/1NOOd94lCPozMIuaLHBIhyh
6MAXsbXmnPBFl9JUopJpdEvEPha8DOPozDmtXW6bzbdpVfTEvXbDZNtH1eJ6z+5C
BVSf5ZFrACDOntzPQdG+oeIi2diLrP//i6exowREpKSkEDgXgZ5txqfJw9wP0hpJ
hgJFnlp2baGE5XWkEk4LGE5itvW2U28mu6Bs4oBJGvBquah21rud+edQ53osbrCa
l7FkvTFzrLzih7XnNo/YcStZlzkcUtGibZ0kjoS2a57vqOR9y9BtfyYTp+GBkVrT
91nlnFVwEvUOHWCS5rLqFdP8hXrxnMW9zhlEnJWqXRGHbmJRfmPvFBbJzNO8kK4=
=gZaL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Sig_/6aeocn5o2WG4HWR9FWT1ZwA--