On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 18:25:14 -0400 Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Anthony G. Basile <bluen...@gentoo.org> > 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. > > I think that would be useful in general. It would probably not be > useful in this case, since it was somebody's bright idea to make it > essentially impossible to install two of the options on the same > system (and that wasn't directed at hasufell). Users could of course > still express the preference, but the PM would need to be smart enough > to ignore that preference on 95% of packages that support both options > so that it can take the lower preference on the 5% of packages that > only support the option the user didn't really want. No, that's not *the* problem. LibreSSL vs OpenSSL is actually the *least* problematic one since we intend to support them as 'drop-in-plus-rebuild' replacements. The real problem is those fancy upstreams who believe they're doing everyone a favor by providing the choice between multiple SSL providers. This is what brings the real conflicts here, and this what often loves to break stuff even further by introducing cross-package implementation match requirements... -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgp5RoMRt8T5V.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
