Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Feature request: package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:37:34
Message-Id: 4F9AF537.3000603@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: Feature request: package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force by Jonathan Callen
On 04/27/2012 12:25 PM, Jonathan Callen wrote:
> On 04/27/2012 11:26 AM, Zac Medico wrote: >> In order to be practical, I guess we'd have to add a constraint >> which says that if KEYWORDS contains the stable variant of a >> particular keyword, then it should also be considered to implicitly >> contain the unstable variant when the package manager is deciding >> whether or not to apply package.use.{mask,force}. > >> So, here's a description of the whole algorithm that I'd use: > >> 1) Let EFFECTIVE_KEYWORDS equal the set of values contained in >> KEYWORDS, plus ** and all the unstable variants of the stable >> values contained in KEYWORDS. For example: > >> KEYWORDS="~amd64 x86" -> EFFECTIVE_KEYWORDS="~amd64 x86 ** ~x86" > >> 2) Intersect EFFECTIVE_KEYWORDS with effective ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, >> where effective ACCEPT_KEYWORDS includes any relevant values from >> package.accept_keywords. For example, here is a table of >> intersections of EFFECTIVE_KEYWORDS="~amd64 x86 ** ~x86" with >> various effective ACCEPT_KEYWORDS values: > >> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS | INTERSECTION | package.stable >> ----------------------------------------------------- x86 >> | x86 | yes x86 ~x86 | x86 ~x86 | no ** >> | ** | no amd64 ~amd64 | ~amd64 | no > >> 3) Apply package.stable settings if INTERSECTION contains only >> stable keywords. For example, see the package.stable column in the >> table above. > > This algorithm better matches what I meant in my earlier posting, so > +1 from me. (And if anyone has an ACCEPT_KEYWORDS value of "~amd64 > -amd64", they deserve any issues that may arise). > > The only issue I have with it is that EFFECTIVE_KEYWORDS should be > expanded to contain "*" if any stable keyword is present and "~*" if > any unstable keyword is present (or "*" and "~*" in ACCEPT_KEYWORDS > should be pre-expanded).
Yeah, I omitted * and ~* for brevity, and you've got the right idea. -- Thanks, Zac