-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Vlastimil Babka <caster@g.o> wrote:
>> I think it's better to prevent this rather than waste time with bug
>> reports like that. I asked Zac on IRC whether portage could filter such
>> flags. He suggested using use.mask in profiles. Well since ARCH is also
>> set by a profile, why not. Although a really persistent and stupid user
>> could use.unmask, it's better than no protection. And then we can think
>> how to replace the current ARCH->USE flag system with e.g. USE_EXPAND.
>> What do you think?
>>
> 
> Seems like an acceptable workaround.
> 
> For future EAPIs, ARCH could be a regular USE_EXPANDed flag as you
> suggest, and package managers could filter any flag in USE which is
> not listed in IUSE.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, my impression is that
most people tend to think that certain profile-specific flags such
as userland_* and kernel_* should be considered as implicit members
of IUSE and therefore they shouldn't be explicitly listed in in IUSE.

- --
Thanks,
Zac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkjOw4YACgkQ/ejvha5XGaMILACfSQeRT7y1RzwTWWRnHvXBqFCh
9Q0An2AQZ9jJXLSWD1sKfL6+RdVNgEjl
=Vh+a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----