[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] PROPERTIES=set for meta-packages that should behave like package sets

[Ryan Hill]

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 02:51:53 +0000
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote:

> Zac Medico wrote:
> > Ryan Hill wrote:

> >> Though what happens if a package is in both sets which have
> >> conflicting flags in package.use?  I would say that the nested set
> >> has to have priority.  If not, I can easily imagine people getting
> >> confused when their USE settings for a set are being applied to
> >> all but one or two packages.

> > It seems to me that the most logical approach would be to do some
> > sort of "incremental" stacking, similar to the way that USE flags
> > stack in the profiles. Suppose that we have the following settings
> > in package.use:
> >
> >  @kde-meta    foo bar
> >  @kdeedu-meta -foo
> >
> > If the flags are stacked incrementally, analogously to the way that
> > they are stacked in profiles, then the above setting would apply the
> > "foo" and "bar" flags to all of @kde-meta except for the
> > @kdeedu-meta subset which would only have "bar" applied since "foo"
> > has been disabled incrementally. Does this approach seem reasonable?

> This sounds a good approach.
>
> Ryan, I disagree with your proposal. If I enable a use flag for the
> "meta" @kde and also disable it for @kdenetwork, I don't expect my
> option for the @kde "meta" to override my option for @kdenetwork.
> As Zac proposed, an incremental stack makes more sense. Before we had
> sets, when we enabled a use flag for a meta and disabled it for an
> ebuild pulled by the meta, we never expected the option for the ebuild
> to be overridden by the option for the meta.

Yes, that's what I said.  ;)

The nested set's flags (@kde-network) override the parent set's flags
(@kde).


-- 
gcc-porting,                                      by design, by neglect
treecleaner,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662