On 10/30/2015 10:16 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 10/30/15 3:35 PM, hasufell wrote: >> On 10/30/2015 06:55 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> We have no way of saying 'I prefer polarssl, then gnutls, then >>> libressl, and never openssl'. >> I don't think this is something that can be reasonably supported and it >> sounds awfully automagic. And I don't see how this is possible right >> now, so I'm not really sure what you expect to get worse. >> >> E.g. -gnutls pulling in dev-libs/openssl is not really something you'd >> expect. If we go for provider USE flags, then things become consistent, >> explicit and unambiguous. The only problem is our crappy implementation >> of providers USE flags via REQUIRED_USE. >> > I'm not sure what mgorny has in mind, but the problem I see with saying > I want just X to be my provider system wide is that some pkgs build with > X others don't, other pkgs might need a different provider. So it might > make sense to order them in terms of preference: X1 > X2 > X3 ... and > then when emerging a package, the first provider in the preference list > that works is pulled in for that package. >
Isn't that basically what the proposal B already was, except that we don't use REQUIRED_USE for it but some sort of pkg_setup/pkg_pretend function? I don't see how those ideas even conflict.
