On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:12:32 -0800 Zac Medico <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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.
It's not obvious at all. The evidence so far suggests that good human readable messages are important, and that if we're ever going to get automated resolution then we'll need a new not-SAT-based format anyway. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
