On 04/26/2012 11:28 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 27 April 2012 00:43:15 Jonathan Callen wrote:
>> On 04/26/2012 06:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>>> I'd like to suggest we introduce the following very useful
>>> feature, as soon as possible (which likely means in the next
>>> EAPI?):
>>>
>>> * two new files in profile directories supported,
>>> package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force * syntax is
>>> identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force * meaning is
>>> identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force, except that
>>> the resulting rules are ONLY applied iff a stable keyword is in
>>> use
>>
>> As "a stable keyword is in use" is either ambiguous or outright wrong
>> (depending on exactly what was meant by that), I would propose that
>> one of the following cases replace that:
>>
>> * At least one keyword beginning with "~" or the value "**" is in the
>> global ACCEPT_KEYWORDS.
>> * At least one keyword beginning with "~" or the value "**" is in the
>> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS used for the package in question.
>>
>> This is required because on a typical ~amd64 system, the effective
>> value of ACCEPT_KEYWORDS is "amd64 ~amd64" -- which would be covered
>> under "a stable keyword is in use" (the same applies for other arches
>> as well).
> 
> i don't think that wording is correct and misses the point.  simple example of 
> how this should work:
> 
> if package.use.stable.force has:
> 	cat/pkg foo
> 
> and then cat/pkg/pkg-0.ebuild has:
> 	KEYWORDS="~amd64 x86"
> 
> the forcing of "foo" would apply to people who are ARCH=x86 (regardless of 
> their ACCEPT_KEYWORDS containing ~x86), but not apply to people who are 
> ARCH=amd64.  once the ebuild changes to KEYWORDS="amd64 x86", then it would 
> apply to both.
> 
> i.e. the keyword matching is to the ebuild, not to the user's ACCEPT_KEYWORDS.

That makes sense in the context of trying to keep repoman from
complaining. Since repoman complains about stable keywords for packages
with unstable dependencies, package.use.stable.{force,mask} will serve
to mask off conditional dependencies that would otherwise trigger
*DEPEND.bad complaints from repoman.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac