Michael Orlitzky posted on Sun, 05 Mar 2017 14:44:58 -0500 as excerpted: > On 03/05/2017 02:12 PM, Zac Medico wrote: >> >> Incorrect. >> >> ... >> >> Incorrect. >> >> > I see my mistakes, but maintain that this is confusing =)
For the record, I think it's /somewhat/ confusing too, and would prefer your two options... except for the backward compatibility thing, which throws a serious wrench into things if we end up keeping the existing -- with-bdeps option even for a deprecation period, and throws an entirely different wrench into things if we simply ignore backward compatibility and remove it without a deprecation period. Which leaves me at a loss as to which option would be better, killing backward compatibility for an arguably clearer pair of options, or staying with backward compatibility and Zac's confusing, but perhaps the best that can be done given the existing option and backward compatibility, pair of options. Tho for me personally, I've been --with-bdeps=y all the way, since original introduction, and Zac's changes would affect that at all, tho of course I'd have to adjust due to loss of backward compatibility if mjo's options were taken. And there's already portage precedent for "I don't want to have to care, just make it do the right thing unless I tell it otherwise", in other areas, so I think --with-bdeps-auto= seems to be most consistent with the existing pattern, which means, confusing tho it may be, it /does/ result in most people not needing to care, so in the end, even tho I agree it's definitely more complex than I'd wish, I'll have to lean Zac's way on this one. Which effectively surprises even me. I started this post expecting I was going to agree with mjo, but ended up talking myself out of it. <shrug> -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
