On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:23:10 +0100
Philipp Riegger <lists@...> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:45:30 +0200
> mmacleod@... wrote:
> 
> > > Then have a hash generate set up where it would take
> > > the name, version, and use flags, cflags and hash just that
> > > information.  
> > We are talking about two different types of hashes.
> > There would be a hash in the package names in order to tell the
> > difference between package foo compiled with use flag "bar" and
> > package foo compiled without useflag "baa"(It would also have to
> > take into account cflags and dependency versions), this is part of
> > the "improved binary support idea".  
> 
> I'm not sure if this is doable, but not using hashes would be great.
> It would be cool to encode as much information as possible so that it
> can be decoded again. In any case, there should be a database with
> what the hashes mean, so that users can see "Ok, i use this and that
> CLFAGS and this and that USE-flags, and if i now change that USE-flag
> which I don't really care about and add -pipe to my CFLAGS, I can
> find almost everything I need as binary packages".

One thing i forgot: Are these CFLAGS and USE-flags hashes per package?
So, If you have 2 different profiles which are the same except 1 USE
flag, would a package not having the flag in IUSE get the same hash in
both profiles?

Philipp