On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:40:28 +0100 hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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. And some sort of magical USE flag meanings? Please stop this right here. We don't need 16 USE flag package variants which mean 4 things in different, random and unexpected ways. -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpquo4b3BTo3.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
