1 |
On 04/26/2012 11:28 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> On Friday 27 April 2012 00:43:15 Jonathan Callen wrote: |
3 |
>> On 04/26/2012 06:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
4 |
>>> I'd like to suggest we introduce the following very useful |
5 |
>>> feature, as soon as possible (which likely means in the next |
6 |
>>> EAPI?): |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> * two new files in profile directories supported, |
9 |
>>> package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force * syntax is |
10 |
>>> identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force * meaning is |
11 |
>>> identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force, except that |
12 |
>>> the resulting rules are ONLY applied iff a stable keyword is in |
13 |
>>> use |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>> As "a stable keyword is in use" is either ambiguous or outright wrong |
16 |
>> (depending on exactly what was meant by that), I would propose that |
17 |
>> one of the following cases replace that: |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>> * At least one keyword beginning with "~" or the value "**" is in the |
20 |
>> global ACCEPT_KEYWORDS. |
21 |
>> * At least one keyword beginning with "~" or the value "**" is in the |
22 |
>> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS used for the package in question. |
23 |
>> |
24 |
>> This is required because on a typical ~amd64 system, the effective |
25 |
>> value of ACCEPT_KEYWORDS is "amd64 ~amd64" -- which would be covered |
26 |
>> under "a stable keyword is in use" (the same applies for other arches |
27 |
>> as well). |
28 |
> |
29 |
> i don't think that wording is correct and misses the point. simple example of |
30 |
> how this should work: |
31 |
> |
32 |
> if package.use.stable.force has: |
33 |
> cat/pkg foo |
34 |
> |
35 |
> and then cat/pkg/pkg-0.ebuild has: |
36 |
> KEYWORDS="~amd64 x86" |
37 |
> |
38 |
> the forcing of "foo" would apply to people who are ARCH=x86 (regardless of |
39 |
> their ACCEPT_KEYWORDS containing ~x86), but not apply to people who are |
40 |
> ARCH=amd64. once the ebuild changes to KEYWORDS="amd64 x86", then it would |
41 |
> apply to both. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> i.e. the keyword matching is to the ebuild, not to the user's ACCEPT_KEYWORDS. |
44 |
|
45 |
That makes sense in the context of trying to keep repoman from |
46 |
complaining. Since repoman complains about stable keywords for packages |
47 |
with unstable dependencies, package.use.stable.{force,mask} will serve |
48 |
to mask off conditional dependencies that would otherwise trigger |
49 |
*DEPEND.bad complaints from repoman. |
50 |
-- |
51 |
Thanks, |
52 |
Zac |