On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 20:30:38 +0100 Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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 That's why they can define blockers/conflicts. > 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 Are you going somewhere in particular with this or just arguing for the sake of arguing? -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpiNTljQdjgr.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
