Ühel kenal päeval, R, 27.01.2017 kell 23:58, kirjutas Kent Fredric: > On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:32:23 +0100 > Fabian Groffen <grob...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > I'm interested to hear how other people feel about this. > > Yeah. Pretty much my reaction to > > Mart Raudsepp <l...@gentoo.org> 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?
It can be very useful in some cases, especially when these cases involve local USE flags in a way that the errors come after enabling something locally in an unsuitable way. But yes, ideally the package manager would have a clue about what happened for the cases like the one in question, but REQUIRED_USE provided a faster solution to some of the problems that could be implemented in package managers in a reasonable time for the EAPI this was introduced in. We could work on top of this in a future EAPI. > 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: Sure, I have some thoughts for this and a rough draft, at least in my head :) I don't have it as a priority to sketch it out well alone, but if someone is honestly interested, I could braindump my ideas in realtime medium. Or someone thinks of them themselves :) > 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.
