On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:33:49 -0800 Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 01/20/2015 10:20 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 09:28:21 -0800 > > Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >> On 01/20/2015 01:11 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > >>> I think we can only make the safest assumption. Even without > >>> subslot, if you consider this: || ( a b c d ), with a and c > >>> installed but package automagically deciding to use only a, how > >>> can a PM decide whether it is safe to remove a or not after the > >>> package has been merged ? > >> > >> Right, this demonstrates that || deps are ambiguous. So, maybe we > >> should look at alternatives that are not so ambiguous, such as USE > >> conditionals and REQUIRED_USE constraints. > > > > if you assume there are no automagic deps, what is wrong and/or > > ambiguous with '|| ( a b c d ) means "any of them, and at least all > > that were available when the package was merged"' ? > > in the above example this avoids PM breaking people systems by > > removing 'a' (e.g. if another packages pulls in 'd' that has a > > blocker against 'a') and as a side effect makes := deps work... > > Sure, but when you start using words like "at least all that were > available when the package was merged", it shows a lack of precision > in your model. "all that were available when the package was merged" is perfectly defined. The "at least" is to allow room for dynamic deps but can be dropped. Simple words don't make things less precise, just more readable :) [...]
