From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08DFE13877A for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:24:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E2C45E1B58; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:23:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA565E1A62 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:23:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.195] (CPE002401f30b73-CM78cd8ec1b205.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.224.181.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 002813400DE for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:23:54 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53D2AEC3.2080600@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:23:47 -0400 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: USE flags in virtuals, to allow a specific provider to be determined References: <53D2A6C8.9060900@gentoo.org> <20140725210438.0703f164@gentp.lnet> In-Reply-To: <20140725210438.0703f164@gentp.lnet> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 31a3936d-b8f9-416f-8da8-3759562474bd X-Archives-Hash: fd40ffb32e5394bf47b12c09aa95e1dd -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 25/07/14 03:04 PM, Luis Ressel wrote: > I guess that would solve some of the issues we've had with virtuals > in the past. I support the idea, however, I'm not sure of the > technical consequences it might have. > > I would leave the REQUIRED_USE out. It's a hassle to write, and if > an user decides to set multiple use flags on such a virtual, why > not just let him do it? > This is something that should only be done on a case-by-case basis, as needed -- for instance, with virtual/krb5 only one provider can be installed at a time as they block eachother. We could leave it up to portage to error on mit-krb5 and heimdal being forced into the installation despite blocking eachother, but i think portage would have a better chance telling end-users about the conflict (and maybe helping to resolve it better via --autounmask?) if there was a REQUIRED_USE. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlPSrsMACgkQ2ugaI38ACPB6NgD+NK2m8iM46YMi9kITUFEIQ/ih J67PjULbQ5ZHDRQDUs4A/ik+XNbsjNQwFd08jMD1dVG0DLr7VRVvUGz1VpmQB7so =Myry -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----