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 562C81391DB for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:31:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 682FFE0CEC; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:31:42 +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 8EA88E0CB1 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:31:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.130] (bas1-ottawa09-2925288101.dsl.bell.ca [174.92.90.165]) (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 AAF4A33FFC8 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:31:40 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53D3ADB5.7050000@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:31:33 -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] Re: RFC: USE flags in virtuals, to allow a specific provider to be determined References: <53D2A6C8.9060900@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 8e3ffe15-73bb-42d9-8b27-70d77a619bf0 X-Archives-Hash: fb2ddb1f5f596af9da919a254e8cd17b -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 26/07/14 04:05 AM, Duncan wrote: > Ian Stakenvicius posted on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:49:44 -0400 as > excerpted: > >> Hey all.. So, putting aside for now how much of a mess this >> would be to implement in the virtuals' ebuilds themselves, what >> do people think of changing the virtuals so that they contain an >> entry in IUSE for each provider that can satisfy it? >> >> The idea here is that the package satisfying a virtual could be >> optionally explicitly-chosen through package.use (or USE= in >> make.conf, perhaps) instead of having an entry in @world, that >> way if nothing depends on the virtual then it and the provider >> can be - --depclean'ed from the system. The idea is specifically >> NOT to have rdeps depend on these flags, that would undermine the >> whole purpose of the virtual; it would just be for end-users to >> set if they so chose. >> >> This may also help with getting portage to peg a virtual's >> provider to a specific package instead of constantly trying to >> switch from one to another, ie, how systemd kept getting pulled >> in, in relation to the upower virtual. > > What about handling each such virtual_USE as a USE_EXPAND? > VIRTUAL_* as reserved-namespace USE_EXPAND would give us full > backward compatibility along with an immediately identifiable > namespace and virtually (heh) no possibility of confusion with > other configuration. > > Continuing with the earlier virtual/krb5 example, we'd have > VIRTUAL_KRB5, with possible settings in make.conf of: > > VIRTUAL_KRB5=mit-krb5 VIRTUAL_KRB5=heimdal > > Virtually no possibility of confusion with normal USE flags, and > the matching virtual would be immediately identifiable, so no > possibility of getting confused on what it applies to, either. > *shrug*, sure.. effectively we just start using IUSE="virtual_krb5_mit-krb5" instead of "mit-krb5" but yes this would work too. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlPTrbUACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAbcAD/VapV0WR+Z7aWcyHeehHzoHSw Qi8o+EDkQpakD3bVVtAA/0WSTPsPmVWHq3Fn0iITXbprHsKWMV+mXPN23nbpUdzf =aE4s -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----