On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:32:23 +0100 Fabian Groffen <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm interested to hear how other people feel about this. Yeah. Pretty much my reaction to Mart Raudsepp <[email protected]> wrote: > The maintainer should be giving the choice of both, > but if only one can be chosen, the maintainer should make the choice > for you by preferring one of them. Likely gdbm, given berkdb licensing > saga. Brought the same question to me: If the design is intended to force your hand when you have both, what is indeed the point of a REQUIRED_USE feature at all? If "choose a useflag for the user" is something that is happening, it should at least be *visible* to the user that this is happening, not being a silent decision that didn't allow the user to have any say in the matter. What if the feature you chose instead, was contrary to the one they wanted? If anything, I think this is a suggestion that *maybe* we should a way to specify a mechanism for allowing a default to be chosen from a mutually exclusive set, and then: a. Inform the user via pretend output that this automatic conflict reduction has been performed b. Define a portage option that disables automatic conflict resolution for required USE, so users who hate (a) can turn it off. But as it stands, Mart's suggestion of "Hey, just don't use required use, decide for the user" stands essentially as a regression against portage itself.
pgpmoqwpQFHxO.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
