From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CE52139694 for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 19:45:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6721421C0E4; Mon, 29 May 2017 19:44:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-x243.google.com (mail-wm0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1C6BE0E8C for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 19:44:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-x243.google.com with SMTP id d127so20079250wmf.1 for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 12:44:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=coOmVIJszvNpD2myhaaybJF1ijrHh2+DWiPFDvXp0YU=; b=siT3QrBubdJq4Fcxryxt+SlZ7ykQigvZQj/OmvkE/8maUMdELWo7xzLgKuiltBG5ca X8BgA6Lr1ANfebo05NdGB/SHe5s/4fdgZMxAiOjcqd7Tk5s3Ptdwg4I3XAr7bbv9jUuk /1BkRwHL/RDwow/LZargvMTZBOUpOPgB19hcuxUG9M7VNnXpAHdqLu2GANhhZNed4i0D /3yiKBzyWze+I04KmlREuDZswHLPq5U/Wuiby18TzXfLOhr57fn/1neEU+5m2ctzR7aR QE4QtM4sH7pQbTgsFktHyVFoUe6xw/CmTkBLA/uuKgH/SJOQqEI/F1Eip1YRDgjuGNBj BZdQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=coOmVIJszvNpD2myhaaybJF1ijrHh2+DWiPFDvXp0YU=; b=Fwtvh4lVbWezNBojQ45bG3WURmNh9c7lII3xFTCEbFXXsy044rQiRwKFr8YLJv0CGV G+Jgyqb0SGbmjGh8pEkPhnJprX6nrNbYVo2PoIipSGK8KwUeXZwv63vN+i6S2TNvW1ag ArEQHAvio07WJ0f7L9qBzWp1ZRqPelO3AXGL9QHHTdTqdPlPIM6JdHHPWbjGlZINTpo4 5pQfewkO8HJfRKoqv/9vKS4EDzXv2IBC5Om2pCzd1FAu4lGhi+a3Sa6gv7XhNOSY00Yb sNHZD8533m4TzhGd2s8zkCCnyGk08sgs0yDo1x9NOQkJheRv75+Hdg4DJHeRdk9VK5s7 n+1w== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDGtUHsJICOU4ve3ZEmH0HPZNqEVWaW97fyflxJZJrSe50j/sV0 C9UXfDQDABLpPg1d X-Received: by 10.223.164.214 with SMTP id h22mr1027023wrb.174.1496087095558; Mon, 29 May 2017 12:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snowblower (cpc4-broo7-2-0-cust35.14-2.cable.virginm.net. [82.8.215.36]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x37sm17710022wrb.42.2017.05.29.12.44.55 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 29 May 2017 12:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 20:44:52 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE) Message-ID: <20170529204452.1dc5c550@snowblower> In-Reply-To: <1496086953.9772.1.camel@gentoo.org> References: <1496071993.31087.1.camel@gentoo.org> <20170529202432.028f390e@snowblower> <1496086953.9772.1.camel@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.0 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: c3a65614-aba2-43d1-b661-5521ff38ee95 X-Archives-Hash: 1a571dba9b60b4db452ce57aff1ca4c8 On Mon, 29 May 2017 21:42:33 +0200 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > On pon, 2017-05-29 at 20:24 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Mon, 29 May 2017 17:33:13 +0200 > > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: =20 > > > For a long time we seem to be missing appropriate tools to handle > > > USE flag constraints efficiently. EAPI 4 brought REQUIRED_USE but > > > all things considered, it has proven to be far from an optimal > > > solution. I would therefore like to discuss adding a better tool > > > to amend or replace it, to allow for automated handling of USE > > > flag constraints. =20 > >=20 > > REQUIRED_USE's problems all come from it being thrown in at the last > > minute without any testing of either the user experience or the > > feasibility of its implementation. Have you implemented a prototype > > to show that you can actually fix those problems? >=20 > I tend to RFC before starting the implementation. Saves effort. Not the implementation. A prototype implementation. As we saw from REQUIRED_USE, it really doesn't save effort to spend time specifying something that can't even remotely work... --=20 Ciaran McCreesh