On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:09:04 +0100 Peter Stuge <pe...@stuge.se> wrote:
> Tom Wijsman wrote: > > Does replacing this "explicit behavior" by "implicit behavior" make > > sense for the users in general? > > Please don't warp the words. Maybe I misunderstand, but it seems like > that's what you're doing. > > I'll try to clarify: > > With explicit I was refering to allowing manual setting and unsetting > of USE flags, keywords and masks. > > With implicit I was refering to those same things happening > automatically. USE flags set or unset automatically, keywords set or > unset automatically, masks set or unset automatically - as a result > of something or other. > > Any such automations significantly diminish the value of the explicit > knobs and are counter-intuitive. "implicit" in the context of this sub thread is it being present as part of another choice, whereas "explicit" makes it a separate choice. Currently the behavior is explicit because you have to break the dependency cycle yourself and decide how to, whereas making it implicit would solve it; in one or another particular way you'd be unaware of. > If someone is given a mechanism to control which USE flags are set or > unset then it's just stupid to go "around" those settings. This example was about a circular dependency, not about USE flags. > I understand the temptation to make things happen automatically for > ease of development, and that is perfectly fine as long as those > automations aren't exposed to users. And that's the question, it is the hard part of figuring it out... :) (To be clear: In the context of the sub thread answering the example.) -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
