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 34C8C1386F3 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:49:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 086101425A; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:49:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com (mail-ob0-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) (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 E472514241 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:49:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbfr1 with SMTP id fr1so22304553obb.1 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:49:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=wn1CJAcyivBishyIg1swJvbIqkQWxjAKg/Y4tRDwnxU=; b=xV8UaMB9hestYUXoBigwu41aHhlR5sNKTAtUyxDtu0HkSOxcAE/dru/3ly+zSzGYqX xNZRIrWQj/a5a8/fUq4lDxs9wG6xi/KBsa0Bc9X8VZOergkh0F3TatP+yw3gyvxaF0Eb +9Y6oupsfSe3hVQOzbJ9Kz4rJwVfY4EVgIGNGrYXDZNBQ2jIIpERW5q5AyiQyUkLrG9M JRrF0P2BS7Cy6c9+Qtlg+uYjTBOy64ZNod98oIgD8kmPpB1COY53Lbw3tk+4I90zRgPW FQfcfmXDk/1pQo2+8gzlw7jUHEM4o24rCHOuzCXUF1HyxFpUY1MiGKPHi6zPnoV6E3EJ BJ2g== 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 X-Received: by 10.182.246.9 with SMTP id xs9mr31559313obc.45.1439412547105; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.65.196 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:49:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150812052120.5a83c3b1@googlemail.com> References: <55C7AC24.2040503@gentoo.org> <55C9CA32.3060300@gentoo.org> <55C9F189.10102@gentoo.org> <20150812052120.5a83c3b1@googlemail.com> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 08:49:06 +1200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: useflag policies From: Kent Fredric To: gentoo-dev Cc: kensington@gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: b73bddc1-913e-413b-85f0-bec8f0a31c5d X-Archives-Hash: 26d0fb61cf93f6ecaf5fd4437028c5de On 12 August 2015 at 16:21, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Can't we all (except for the usual suspect) just agree that REQUIRED_USE > was a mistake, and go back to pkg_pretend? The only justification for > REQUIRED_USE was that it could allegedly be used in an automated > fashion, and this hasn't happened. I think such a proposal needs to be tested on places where it is used heavily, for instance, python modules where REQUIRED_USE is employed extensively, which could mean a significant number of pkg_pretend phases executing, which *could* be more expensive than the equivalent static dependency code. ( And it could be required that python eclass consumers would all have to provide a pkg_pretend() even if they didn't need required_use behaviour ) I'm not saying it *is*, but a side by side comparison of real-world problems there would be important. ( Maybe the complex dependency resolver stuff is much slower, hard to tell ) -- Kent KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL