On 01/20/2015 12:15 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > 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.
Nothing stops us from using pkg_pretend right now. Since REQUIRED_USE remains useful, I would suggest that we keep it around until we have implemented a replacement that allows for automated resolution. -- Thanks, Zac
