From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-portage-dev+bounces-4741-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 A36F0138A6C
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Wed,  8 Apr 2015 14:22:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A5308E0985;
	Wed,  8 Apr 2015 14:21:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 201BBE097E
	for <gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed,  8 Apr 2015 14:21:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <glgpd-gentoo-portage-dev@m.gmane.org>)
	id 1Yfqra-0001qF-Vy
	for gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 16:21:55 +0200
Received: from pc123.math.cas.cz ([147.231.88.123])
        by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
        id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
        for <gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 16:21:54 +0200
Received: from martin by pc123.math.cas.cz with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
        id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
        for <gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 16:21:54 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org
From: Martin Vaeth <martin@mvath.de>
Subject: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Dynamic USE dependencies
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 14:21:48 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <mg3dhs$a6p$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <CAGfcS_kGeX08et-vcW6qFwnRQMqZRz5dc0sM5AxSrhjuwCbDSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5520CCA6.6020801@gentoo.org> <mfrldn$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>
 <CAGfcS_nzwsJOfy=iniNi3MFsLFCKUPM5XBQ2Y6-eCu6xgAcX1g@mail.gmail.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pc123.math.cas.cz
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Linux)
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
X-Archives-Salt: 2d4aa40d-c574-4da3-83db-f4a78dddf498
X-Archives-Hash: 1090ae141ccfdf106d9bd9da8c17620c

Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> 1.  They can STILL populate /etc/portage/package.use
> 2.  They could manually install a package with one-time specified USE
>
> Why do we need another mechanism to control what flags a package gets
> installed

We do not *need* it. By why reject it if you can get it for free
by just making the it transparent to the user?
The user should be able to decide e.g. when to clean it up
and select perhaps e.g. only a certain classes which should be
cleaned up (e.g. by removing all/certain cpu_flags_x86 and
letting them regenerate).