Am 01.06.2014 um 20:35 schrieb Peter Rabbitson <rab...@rabbit.us>: > On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 08:15:20PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: >> >> Am 01.06.2014 um 20:09 schrieb Peter Rabbitson <rab...@rabbit.us>: >> >>> On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 05:59:16PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: >>>> >>>> Am 01.06.2014 um 15:03 schrieb David Golden <x...@xdg.me>: >>>> >>>>> The only thing specified in the lancaster consensus is what must >>>>> happen if that command-line argument is true. >>>>> >>>>> I think making a distinction between "0" and undefined will be >>>>> surprising to people and I would recommend against it. >>>> >>>> Given this point - how can we give people an instrument to force XS >>>> and fail if it's not available? >>> >>> As I mentioned before - you create a separate ::XS distribution, against >>> which the outliers declare dependencies. In general "forcing XS" when PP >>> is available is *always* *invairably* the wrong approach (which is why >>> they are called outliers above ;) >> >> The user must always have a way to enforce or fail. And not every >> distribution can be split into 2. So please forget the cases where >> it's possible to split and let's come back to the question: >> >> How can we enable the user/packager to make a clear choice? >> > > Let me rephrase: making available a "XS-only" choice, when both PP ans XS are > available is a mistake. Not just making the choice is a mistake, > *presenting it* is a mistake in its own right.
You should explain why that should be a mistake when presenting a "PP-only" choice is not a mistake. That doesn't make any sense to me. > Unless you have a clear use case that you didn't mention before ;) Is "The user makes the choice" not a clear use case? I rate this as _the_ use case. Cheers -- Jens Rehsack rehs...@gmail.com
