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 86C2A139694 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:19:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 807D8E0D97; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:19:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (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 3288FE0C5F for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:19:11 +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 DE0F43416BA for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:19:09 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:19:04 +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: <20170615181904.25479e47@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20170615171357.5a190869@snowblower> References: <1496071993.31087.1.camel@gentoo.org> <1496686212.1222.4.camel@gentoo.org> <20170606140803.051f8048@gentoo.org> <1496770744.1157.1.camel@gentoo.org> <20170607101759.7e21f0f6@gentoo.org> <1496827679.2129.3.camel@gentoo.org> <20170607115654.2a5da5e2@gentoo.org> <1496999960.29391.1.camel@gentoo.org> <20170609134110.418ae6ac@gentoo.org> <1497012847.25475.4.camel@gentoo.org> <20170609161619.1b72ad5b@gentoo.org> <1497025310.25475.7.camel@gentoo.org> <20170611180518.5e28ddfa@gentoo.org> <20170612110836.7b670c93@gentoo.org> <1497295036.1575.10.camel@gentoo.org> <20170613122745.455b39f7@gentoo.org> <1497392022.29918.1.camel@gentoo.org> <20170614110659.6bf4d1c2@gentoo.org> <1497443088.1223.1.camel@gentoo.org> <20170614151606.70d5d559@gentoo.org> <1497448658.1223.3.camel@gentoo.org> <20170614160939.1b15d2fa@gentoo.org> <1497542353.2933.1.camel@gentoo.org> <20170615180700.11b3ef6a@gentoo.org> <20170615171357.5a190869@snowblower> 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: cc4b31f1-b076-4492-b4b9-2ad4891c8033 X-Archives-Hash: 3fb8a55c554f351477e1e792a227b0cd On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:13:57 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:07:00 +0200 > Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > The best way to convince me is through valid examples. > > > > It is also easier to be convinced when you try to understand and ask > > for clarifications instead of just rejecting without thinking :) > > The problem with this entire proposal is that it's still in "well I > can't think of how it could possibly go wrong" territory. We need a > formal proof that it's sound. History has shown that if something can > be abused by Gentoo developers, it will be abused... Had you read the thread you would have noticed that I provided an algorithm giving sufficient conditions for the solver to work. That is, if developers pay attention to repoman warnings/errors, it will never fail. Obviously, since we're still in the SAT space, you can ignore the errors and make it fail, but it'll never be worse than what we currently have.