On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 20:40:00 +0100 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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. well then 'ihateudev' masking udev, 'ihateeudev' masking eudev and 'ihatesystemd' masking systemd; what are the blockers here? > > 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? arguing for the sake of arguing are the above examples; this is the reason why it is useless to argue on this because you're basically hiding a sat solver inside repoman: it has to answer the question "does there exist an assignment of mixins that makes that dep unsatisfiable?" if you want the check to be complete
