From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-portage-dev+bounces-4739-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0903A138A6C
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:13:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B4FA6E09B5;
Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:13:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com (mail-ig0-f181.google.com [209.85.213.181])
(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 58F79E099F
for <gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:13:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igblo3 with SMTP id lo3so35201596igb.1
for <gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 03:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
:from:to:content-type;
bh=Jb+8RNw9XBS99w8+KpjQNfa6M/B/mTK5dKBzB5x/Y3E=;
b=UKiboxKpSYtvIlENQIN1whf2ETy6E1XQCVIXIquyzv7eRzenMs8c2jakp7qYxPteLO
Xv/OgwQrxjF7Z0ANCGBtTaEStCOjwLJtRmxbg9B//WD28C45p6cpORuNgvEfi+EPCojx
5r4ggaXgsO9yC4yJXF/pLg2vjgLIhnsb4zwC6Bzv0P7AD1AghV3k9E80tNTbsHThL6W5
djrexpqqBGzCeUDmu4skpbPJxaVrwZ+jHWZYO6sHnGqLJMG6Cqg7xQpuEOmWeiyTT/vV
3du4HxmNHV76ab8ZwtFWchCs97h+uHABI1ljPaNBOcnqzYXav1j8TRahsHrSnyYdO+qc
EPBg==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-portage-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-portage-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-portage-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-portage-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.66.131 with SMTP id xq3mr32794446icb.9.1428488016626;
Wed, 08 Apr 2015 03:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.48.198 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Apr 2015 03:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mg2mb5$e1$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <CAGfcS_kGeX08et-vcW6qFwnRQMqZRz5dc0sM5AxSrhjuwCbDSA@mail.gmail.com>
<5520CCA6.6020801@gentoo.org>
<mfrldn$l2k$1@ger.gmane.org>
<CAGfcS_m1XVOSwAzt9tZruFoyr85FW4h-135+c3P8B-uEu3hY1g@mail.gmail.com>
<mftsjr$v62$1@ger.gmane.org>
<CAGfcS_=rAoJdU4m2wEOmGg_cnfMi7OwQU4moFjYH8_4OC_bBhw@mail.gmail.com>
<mg2mb5$e1$1@ger.gmane.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 06:13:36 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: -LuHRO5j7naRLnipNeBQB1GAgQE
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_nzwsJOfy=iniNi3MFsLFCKUPM5XBQ2Y6-eCu6xgAcX1g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Dynamic USE dependencies
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: 06ae400e-f43d-4fbd-8727-3cd62e5fbbe3
X-Archives-Hash: e53f6791524eeed42181ef4f168c03e3
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Martin Vaeth <martin@mvath.de> wrote:
> Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Keep in mind that keeping track of past decisions made by portage does
>> not require user-editable config files in /etc.
>
> Yes, but you might not always agree with portage's decisions,
> and the resolution might be non-unique.
How is this different with USE flags vs package installs? The
satisfaction of virtuals could have many possible solutions. We make
it deterministic by defaulting to the first option listed for the
first package that happens to get installed. If you install a series
of packages in various orders from a fresh install, you could get
different packages installed to satisfy virtuals.
The solution we provide for package installs is that the user can just
emerge a dependency manually if they have a preference, and then
portage will stick with it unless there is a conflict.
For dynamic USE flags I've already proposed two mechanisms to give the
user control:
1. They can STILL populate /etc/portage/package.use and make explicit
choices, which portage will follow.
2. They could manually install a package with one-time specified USE
flags, and portage would stick with these as long as they don't create
a conflict.
Why do we need another mechanism to control what flags a package gets
installed with other than these two, such as making more detailed
cache data user-editable?
--
Rich