On 01/20/2015 12:05 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:02:38 -0800 > Zac Medico <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 01/20/2015 09:25 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:41:21 +0100 >>> Ulrich Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Seriously? You expect users to figure out [1] what combinations of >>>> USE flags will work for such an ebuild? >>> >>> Why don't we just admit that Brian was horribly wrong, scrap >>> REQUIRED_USE in the next EAPI, and go back to the sensible, >>> tried-and-tested way of doing it that I proposed to begin with? >> >> Regardless of whether or not (or how) we choose to apply REQUIRED_USE >> to various cases, I think we should keep REQUIRED_USE around, since >> having a machine-readable representation of these constraints can >> potentially be extremely useful to dependency resolvers. > > [evidence needed] >
REQUIRED_USE is already successfully used to apply constraints that would otherwise need to be enforced by executing shell code in pkg_pretend. I think it's obvious that the declarative and machine-readable nature of REQUIRED_USE make if preferable to using pkg_pretend in many cases. -- Thanks, Zac
