On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:37:15 +0100 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > For example, if you allow use.mask or use.force in mixins, you can > > end up having unsatisfiable deps that repoman will never catch. > > Arguably, desktop profiles relying on having an useflag forced on a > > given package are already semi-broken: they'd be better with the > > useflag default enabled and proper usedeps, so the mask/force game > > doesnt seem really useful for mixins. > > That's why if you do such a thing, you would have to declare a regular > profile using this mix-in for repoman to test. >
still that doesn't account for a 'ihatelennart' mixin masking udev & systemd and a 'ilovelennart' mixin masking udev & eudev and an user enabling them both why not let such a stupid example be, it is similar to package.mask users can already fill, but I'm pretty sure more subtle breakage will appear repoman will test n out of 2^n (or n!) possibilities the way you suggest, which is basically nothing when n is big
