On Tuesday 24 March 2009 12:35:44 Philipp Riegger wrote:
> 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?
Yes.