On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 08:40:14PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: > > Am 01.06.2014 um 20:35 schrieb Peter Rabbitson <rab...@rabbit.us>: > > > On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 08:15:20PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: > >> > >> Am 01.06.2014 um 20:09 schrieb Peter Rabbitson <rab...@rabbit.us>: > >> > >>> On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 05:59:16PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Am 01.06.2014 um 15:03 schrieb David Golden <x...@xdg.me>: > >>>> > >>>>> The only thing specified in the lancaster consensus is what must > >>>>> happen if that command-line argument is true. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think making a distinction between "0" and undefined will be > >>>>> surprising to people and I would recommend against it. > >>>> > >>>> Given this point - how can we give people an instrument to force XS > >>>> and fail if it's not available? > >>> > >>> As I mentioned before - you create a separate ::XS distribution, against > >>> which the outliers declare dependencies. In general "forcing XS" when PP > >>> is available is *always* *invairably* the wrong approach (which is why > >>> they are called outliers above ;) > >> > >> The user must always have a way to enforce or fail. And not every > >> distribution can be split into 2. So please forget the cases where > >> it's possible to split and let's come back to the question: > >> > >> How can we enable the user/packager to make a clear choice? > >> > > > > Let me rephrase: making available a "XS-only" choice, when both PP ans XS > > are > > available is a mistake. Not just making the choice is a mistake, > > *presenting it* is a mistake in its own right. > > You should explain why that should be a mistake when presenting a "PP-only" > choice is not a mistake. That doesn't make any sense to me. > > > Unless you have a clear use case that you didn't mention before ;) > > Is "The user makes the choice" not a clear use case? I rate this as _the_ use > case. >
I suspect vis-a-vis is reuired to clear this up. I'll refrain from further additions to this thread until our next meet on the 3rd ;)
