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 13B451396D0 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2017 14:14:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 314B21FC074; Sat, 12 Aug 2017 14:14:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBCB61FC050 for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2017 14:14:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (c-98-218-46-55.hsd1.md.comcast.net [98.218.46.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mjo) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0654834183C for ; Sat, 12 Aug 2017 14:14:20 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Revisions for USE flag changes To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <1502521423.1045.0.camel@gentoo.org> <4ebddcf6-1d84-684a-6e3c-96bb65c24fd2@gentoo.org> From: Michael Orlitzky Message-ID: <265b4480-8425-4c52-df23-0cf423e1c7f4@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2017 10:14:18 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 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 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: a25aa41e-a654-4741-bc81-f8a62e21a8c8 X-Archives-Hash: 0519d3ae78c8fba8810c9114f89f7264 On 08/12/2017 06:29 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > My gut feeling is that the change you want is probably a good thing, > but it will never happen if you can't provide a single example of > something bad happening due to the lack of a revbump. There's an unfixed security vulnerability with USE=foo, so we drop the flag temporarily. Users who had USE=foo enabled will keep the vulnerable code installed until they update with --changed-use or --newuse. Even with the devmanual improvements, the advice we give is conflicting: * If you fix an important runtime issue, do a revbump. * If you drop a USE flag, don't do a revbump. What if you fix a runtime issue by dropping a flag? It's more confusing than it has to be: the USE flag exception interacts weirdly with all the other rules.