[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE)
From:       Alexis Ballier <aballier () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2017-06-15 18:09:01
Message-ID: 20170615200901.35bfe18e () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:48:42 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 19:30:02 +0200
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:04:35 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:  
> > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:55:45 +0200
> > > Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:    
> > > > The guarantee comes from the fact that the output is always in
> > > > the space of all possible inputs from the user. So, if some
> > > > output will kill a kitten, so does some input.      
> > > 
> > > USE=minimal
> > > USE=mips
> > > USE=-ssl
> > >     
> > 
> > So what?  
> 
> So, if the aim of this solution is to make things better for the user,
> what are you doing to establish that this will make things better for
> the user instead of recommending something awful?
> 

Considering that the way you write REQUIRED_USE defines how the solver
behaves, your problem is ill defined.

If I try to ask my crystal ball, I would say: USE=mips is either masked
or forced so never an option. Developer would not want USE=minimal to
be toggled randomly so would write a constraint so that it always
appears e.g. on the left part of an implication.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]