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. Unless you have a clear use case that you didn't mention before ;)
