On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 00:05:53 -0600
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 02:51:53 +0000
> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote:

> > Ryan, I disagree with your proposal. If I enable a use flag for the
> > "meta" @kde and also disable it for @kdenetwork, I don't expect my
> > option for the @kde "meta" to override my option for @kdenetwork.
> > As Zac proposed, an incremental stack makes more sense. Before we
> > had sets, when we enabled a use flag for a meta and disabled it for
> > an ebuild pulled by the meta, we never expected the option for the
> > ebuild to be overridden by the option for the meta.

> Yes, that's what I said.  ;)
> 
> The nested set's flags (@kde-network) override the parent set's flags
> (@kde).

Though I'm still not sure what happens when a package is in two
unrelated sets..

@gnome:
   RDEPEND=">=gnome-extra/gnome-screensaver-2.22.2"

@xfce4:
   RDEPEND="gnome-extra/gnome-screensaver"

package.use:
@gnome             opengl
@xfce              -opengl


-- 
gcc-porting,                                      by design, by neglect
treecleaner,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662