Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alt

From: Markus Duft <mduft@g.o>
To: gentoo-alt@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] prefix keywords need to go (?)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:58:47
Message-Id: 1237987308.28894.23.camel@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] prefix keywords need to go (?) by Jeremy Olexa
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 08:08 -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> Fabian Groffen wrote: > > On 25-03-2009 00:30:18 -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote: > >> So, since we are already in a hugely reactive mode..why don't we just > >> get rid of prefix keywords completely? It gets hairy if the arch most > >> always needs patches (FreeMiNT/IRIX comes to mind). However, this is one > >> reason that we ask for everyone's help in submitting patches upstream. > > > > - "use <keyword> && bla" will no longer work (question; is it sane? well > > we need it in *DEPENDs at the moment for sure) > > Reply to both you and mduft, same point.
ah, yes... so that one is not a problem.
> > The profile sets ARCH which is put into USE. so "use $ARCH && bla" will > still work. > > > - Portage needs to be patched not to look at keywords any more, solar's > > Set ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="**" in the profile, no patching needed.
hm. i'm afraid this won't work too good with regards to virtual selection, etc, where one possible selection for a virtual would work, but the _frist_ one in the list (which is selected by portage if all are equal) doesn't work. i could list a few of those at least for interix, winnt, hpux, aix, .... so that one won't work. most "|| ( )" would break ... and i don't think it would be an option to change the ordering of such || lists. (wow - reading this again i get knots in my brain... do _you_ understand what i mean? :) ) Cheers, Markus
>
[snip]
> > > > Or did I mis the point? > > Clearer now? > > -Jeremy > >