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 4AB2B139694 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 08:11:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B85921C0FA; Tue, 30 May 2017 08:10:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (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 0A62D21C0DF for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 08:10:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e34:eeaa:6bd0:4ecc:6aff:fe03:1cfc]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6FE0634172D for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 08:10:30 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 10:10:23 +0200 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE) Message-ID: <20170530101023.06c980c8@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <22829.10197.69284.529080@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <1496071993.31087.1.camel@gentoo.org> <20170529200037.2559f80a@gentoo.org> <1496093035.12795.3.camel@gentoo.org> <22828.39468.127754.336255@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20170530094719.16e922f6@gentoo.org> <22829.10197.69284.529080@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.0-dirty (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=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: cb8e0627-213a-4e62-91e0-d8e6b64ed503 X-Archives-Hash: 83a360709cba78f19f4842a4d0993414 On Tue, 30 May 2017 10:05:41 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, 30 May 2017, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 May 2017 00:01:16 +0200 > > Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > >> Also, can we find a better name? Sorry for the bikeshedding at this > >> early stage, but I believe that ENFORCED_USE can be easily confused > >> with use.force in profiles. MAPPED_USE? USE_MAP? > > > Why do we even need a new name ? > > This was under the assumption that we would somewhat restrict the > syntax. > > Sure, if someone comes up with an algorithm that will give a unique > and predictable solution with current REQUIRED_USE syntax then we can > keep the old name. Even if restricting the syntax I'm not sure it is desirable either: If we keep current REQUIRED_USE we'll still have cases where it'll fail horribly, hence not fixing the issue. If all you care about is the syntax, then sure it is doable, but the semantics have to change, and I don't see much difference in restricting the syntax vs. changing its meaning.