Re: erroneous behavior in 2-style USE dependencies?

On 6/16/20 7:47 PM, Michael Lienhardt wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/16/20 11:59 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 6/16/20 6:38 PM, Michael Lienhardt wrote:
>>> 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?
> 
> The way I interpret the PMS, this success is not expected:
>  the atom ">=app-misc/dummy-slave-1" matches the cpv "app-misc/dummy-slave-1" which does not contains the use flag 'static-libs',
>  and thus I expected a 'missing use flag' error.

For this calculation, it would be a waste of time to read the IUSE
metadata for app-misc/dummy-slave-1, since app-misc/dummy-slave-2 is the
highest available version.

I hope that PMS does not specify that package managers must read IUSE
metadata for irrelevant package versions!

> I'm not suggesting to change the behavior of emerge, I'm saying that:
>  - the way I read the PMS, I expect behavior A, but in practice, I see behavior B.
>  - what does the portage devs / PMS gurus think about that?
>     - is my understanding of the PMS wrong, and it actually says "behavior B is expected"?
>     - if yes, where did I fail in my understanding?
>     - if no, should emerge or the PMS be updated so they both describe the same behavior?
>  - I will implement your ruling in my tool, which I try to match as closely as possible to the PMS

In this context I think the spirit of what PMS says is that the package
manager should emit some kind of warning message if it finds missing
IUSE. Now, in the example above, if the package manager has no reason to
examine the IUSE metadata of app-misc/dummy-slave-1 because
app-misc/dummy-slave-2 is the highest available version, then there's no
opportunity for it to emit a warning message.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=RkJN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----