Re: [gentoo-dev] ssl vs openssl vs libressl vs gnutls USE flag foo

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1746 bytes --]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:40:28 +0100
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 10/30/2015 10:16 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> > On 10/30/15 3:35 PM, hasufell wrote:  
> >> On 10/30/2015 06:55 PM, Michał Górny wrote:  
> >>> We have no way of saying 'I prefer polarssl, then gnutls, then
> >>> libressl, and never openssl'.  
> >> I don't think this is something that can be reasonably supported and it
> >> sounds awfully automagic. And I don't see how this is possible right
> >> now, so I'm not really sure what you expect to get worse.
> >>
> >> E.g. -gnutls pulling in dev-libs/openssl is not really something you'd
> >> expect. If we go for provider USE flags, then things become consistent,
> >> explicit and unambiguous. The only problem is our crappy implementation
> >> of providers USE flags via REQUIRED_USE.
> >>  
> > I'm not sure what mgorny has in mind, but the problem I see with saying
> > I want just X to be my provider system wide is that some pkgs build with
> > X others don't, other pkgs might need a different provider.  So it might
> > make sense to order them in terms of preference: X1 > X2 > X3 ... and
> > then when emerging a package, the first provider in the preference list
> > that works is pulled in for that package.
> >   
> 
> Isn't that basically what the proposal B already was, except that we
> don't use REQUIRED_USE for it but some sort of pkg_setup/pkg_pretend
> function? I don't see how those ideas even conflict.

And some sort of magical USE flag meanings? Please stop this right
here. We don't need 16 USE flag package variants which mean 4 things in
different, random and unexpected ways.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]