Is this not precisely what USE_EXPAND is supposed to be for? Take CURL_SSL and make it generic...
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:06 PM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > B) 1 feature flag, 3 strict provider flags > > * ssl: enable any sort of SSL/TLS support > > * gnutls: only to enable gnutls provided ssl support in case there > > is a choice > > * openssl: only to enable openssl provided ssl support in case > > there is a choice (should not be implemented as !gnutls?) > > * libressl: only to enable libressl provided ssl support in case there > > is a choice, must conflict with 'openssl' USE flag > > > > consequences: > > * REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( openssl libressl )" is not only allowed, it is > > _mandatory_ > > * packages like media-video/ffmpeg _must_ switch the USE flag > > openssl->ssl to avoid breaking global USE flags > > * !gnutls? ( dev-libs/openssl:0 ) will be bad form or even disallowed > > > > B will definitely be more work, but ofc is also a lot cleaner and > > totally unambigous. > > > > ++ > > The pain is for a short time. Then we have to live with this for a > long time. USE flags should have one meaning. The fact that this > isn't the case right now is already a bug. We don't need to > perpetuate it. > > Honestly, this just seems like "the right thing" so if there isn't > opposition then I'd suggest to "just do it" and commit fixes to > ebuilds that need the fix (ie if maintainer doesn't respond to bug > quickly just take care of it). If people object they should speak up > now, and we can take it up at the next council meeting if necessary > (which is right around the corner). > > -- > Rich > >
