On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:30:44 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt...@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> You actually came up with one I was not considering at first but provides a > direct technical benefit you cannot achieve with a USE flag. > > > If anything, I'd imagine if that case arose, it would manifest itself more > > as: > > > > icedtea-bin + USE=official > > Then how would you test that against non official? You cannot install the > same > package twice at the same time with different USE flags. You can't even make > binaries easily of the same package with different USE flags. The previous > binary will get overwritten. You know you can make that argument about *every* useflag right? Being unable to test with one and the other co-installed? The thing is, for the majority of our useflags there is no *Need* to. And more importantly, simply separating the logic into different package names does *not* automatically imply they can be installed side-by-side. They may be mutually exclusive. And plenty of things make this a problem that is intractable to solve. > There you go, a case why it would make sense to have it be -bin and -ebin. > You can install both those at the same time and test. Hence, my argument is not for "a possible use for it" in the "It could be handy for developers to do this" sense. The question is for our *users*: Who out there actually wants to do this sort of thing. What are the benefits. If Upstream and Gentoo both provide binary releases, but the Gentoo one sucks, we should just abolish the Gentoo one. If Upstream and Gentoo both provide binary releases, but upstreams sucks, then we should not ship the upstream version.
pgpRJ9wjiENzJ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
