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 24DF513877A for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:56:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5ED51E0AF9; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:56:35 +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 DB38AE0AF8 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:56:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.10.112] (unknown [195.254.219.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bernalex) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F49A340427 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:56:33 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53EB98BC.4050404@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:56:28 +0200 From: Alexander Berntsen 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-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Autounmask changes References: <1407836235-13528-1-git-send-email-bernalex@gentoo.org> <53EB8D23.20208@gentoo.org> <20140813094532.6ba40f8f.dolsen@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20140813094532.6ba40f8f.dolsen@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 58160f83-cc17-4203-9ab2-089f48768836 X-Archives-Hash: 7465c4f9b06ab838262521d0bcbb93d0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 13/08/14 18:45, Brian Dolbec wrote: > Actually, re-reading your patches again, your patches actually made > more sense to me finally. You were fixing it to make implied > behavior the actual behavior. So while I was originally objecting > to them, then was not opposing them (last time we discussed > inclusion), I now see them much clearer and agree with them. > > The --ask implying --autounmask-write is something people would not > object to so strongly like they did to your original patchset. Let's merge the bug fix (see the other thread) first. I can still prepare the other patches if you think that's worthwhile, but I prefer keeping them separated from that very simple bugfix patch. One thing that needs discussion is what to do with the current behaviour of --autounmask, i.e. printing the suggestions. One thing that was really weird in my original patches (the ones in this thread) is this: emerge foo # this will do what --autounmask does today emerge foo --autounmask # this will do what --autounmask-write does emerge foo -a # this will do what --ask --autounmask-write does emerge foo --autounmask=n # this will do what --autounmask=n does The problem here is that there is no way to do e.g. emerge foo --ask, and get suggestions any longer. You can either have it prompt to write stuff, or you can have it not do anything -- but you can't explicitly have it suggest stuff without prompting to write. This is bad design. So either I need to implement tri-state (--autounmask can be yes, no, suggest), or I need to do something more drastic. Suggestions welcome. - -- Alexander bernalex@gentoo.org https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlPrmLwACgkQRtClrXBQc7UBaQEAmdDIIApMb99GIM2UnPHmH6c2 IvuVynLLfbprR2WjdnEA/0czubzAIeGJPCbhQvEoHyb2BC3KSzWThaQVYFrvt05D =5lOp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----