Re: erroneous behavior in 2-style USE dependencies?

Zac Medico <[email protected]> Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:59:40 -0700
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
On 6/16/20 6:38 PM, Michael Lienhardt wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/16/20 9:31 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 6/16/20 11:07 PM, Michael Lienhardt wrote:
>>> I'm sorry, my client didn't allow to send plain text email anymore...
>>>
>>> So, here is my original email.
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> My bad for not noticing it sooner, but when there is a dependency like ">=sys-fs/udev-208-r1:0/0[static-libs?]" (that occurs in virtual/libgudev-215-r3),
>>>  since 'static-libs' is not a use flags of sys-fs/udev-242, that cpv is silently not considered during dependency solving by emerge.
>>> However, the PMS states:
>>>  - it is an error for a use dependency to be applied to an ebuild which does not have the flag in question in IUSE_REFERENCEABLE
>>>  - For EAPIs listed in table 5.4 as not supporting profile defined IUSE injection, IUSE_REFERENCEABLE is equal to the calculated IUSE value. For EAPIs where profile defined IUSE injection is supported, IUSE_REFERENCEABLE is equal to IUSE_EFFECTIVE
>>> And 'static-libs' is not in the IUSE_EFFECTIVE of sys-fs/udev-242 (that ebuild has EAPI=6).
>>> So it seems to me that this current behavior of emerge should be considered an error, no? Or the PMS should be updated?

Yes, according to PMS it's a "error" but emerge has never reported it as
such. Adding an error message to emerge sounds fine to me.

>>> This is related to the tool I'm working on: should my tool allow this behavior, or fail like it is currently doing (I guess the former)?
> 
>> It's valid as a 4-style dependency with use-dep-defaults.

Actually, it doesn't have use-dep-defaults but somehow my brain
associated it with that because you were talking about IUSE.

> I know. Except that in virtual/libgudev-215-r3.ebuild we have in the DEPEND:
>  >=sys-fs/udev-208-r1:0/0[${MULTILIB_USEDEP},gudev(-),introspection(-)?,static-libs?]
> It is a 2-style dependency (following the PMS).
> 
> I checked with 3 dummy packages
> 
> 1. app-misc/dummy-master-1
> EAPI=6
> SLOT=0
> KEYWORDS="amd64"
> IUSE="static-libs"
> DEPEND=">=app-misc/dummy-slave-1[static-libs?]"
> #DEPEND="=app-misc/dummy-slave-1[static-libs?]"
> 
> 2. app-misc/dummy-slave-1
> EAPI=6
> SLOT=0
> KEYWORDS="amd64"
> IUSE=""
> DEPEND=""
> 
> 3. app-misc/dummy-slave-2
> EAPI=6
> SLOT=0
> KEYWORDS="amd64"
> IUSE="static-libs"
> DEPEND=""
> 
> With the first version of DEPEND, emerge succeed:
> # emerge -pv app-misc/dummy-master
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> 
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild  N     ] app-misc/dummy-slave-2::gentoo  USE="-static-libs" 0 KiB
> [ebuild  N     ] app-misc/dummy-master-1::gentoo  USE="-static-libs" 0 KiB

This success is expected, yes? Do you suggest to change the behavior
somehow?

> With the second version of DEPEND, emerge fails:
> # emerge -pv app-misc/dummy-master
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> 
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> 
> emerge: there are no ebuilds built with USE flags to satisfy "=app-misc/dummy-slave-1[static-libs?]".
> !!! One of the following packages is required to complete your request:
> - app-misc/dummy-slave-1::gentoo (Missing IUSE: static-libs)
> (dependency required by "app-misc/dummy-master-1::gentoo" [ebuild])
> (dependency required by "app-misc/dummy-master" [argument])

This failure is expected, yes? Do you suggest to change the behavior
somehow?
-- 
Thanks,
Zac
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 981 B)