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 90B4D13877A for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:50:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A4BDE1BE2; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:50:04 +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 87B23E1BD4 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:50:03 +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 9405034010C for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:50:02 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53D2B4E2.5080400@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:49:54 -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> <53D2AEC3.2080600@gentoo.org> <20140725214402.7a65a988@gentp.lnet> <20140725204649.105e8641@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20140725204649.105e8641@googlemail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: d34dc021-4386-4403-9a36-fb63a9d43abd X-Archives-Hash: b2e12b89434ee05cfe29530d46f47142 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 25/07/14 03:46 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:44:02 +0200 Luis Ressel > wrote: >> Okay, I didn't think of that. I'm not sure if the blocker deps or >> the REQUIRED_USE would be more helpful for Portage, but generally >> I think that the REQUIRED_USE error message is quite hard to >> understand for unexperienced users -- much more so than the error >> generated by a blocker dep. > > ...and the fix for that is to scrap REQUIRED_USE and use > pkg_pretend instead. > Yep, could do it that way instead. I'm not tied to any particular implementation. Back to the concept, though -- thoughts? Is it worth the work? Should it be avoided for whatever reason? Will it just confuse end-users? Am I suggesting a fix for a problem we don't really have? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlPStOIACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCZrwD+J7qqH5a1YVsFoIt+UmT9rOLq TSkd6ai7Eum0MEo6CKsA/3Gsuu9O16rua/LZxeW3i3+qBFufIBDQPqU9YwAyU5lJ =VMCu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----