Re: [gentoo-dev] Feature request: package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force

[Andreas K. Huettel]

Am Freitag 27 April 2012, 17:26:48 schrieb Zac Medico:
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing something, but what would happen when the newest
> > version of a package is marked stable? The masked USE flags would
> > become unavailable for everyone?
>
> 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.


That is the best description I've seen so far, which exactly describes the use 
case that I had in mind.  +1 :)


-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@g.o
http://www.akhuettel.de/