Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alt

From: Markus Duft <mduft@g.o>
To: gentoo-alt@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] prefix keywords need to go (?)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:58:47
Message-Id: 1237987308.28894.23.camel@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-alt] [PREFIX] prefix keywords need to go (?) by Jeremy Olexa
1 On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 08:08 -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
2 > Fabian Groffen wrote:
3 > > On 25-03-2009 00:30:18 -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
4 > >> So, since we are already in a hugely reactive mode..why don't we just
5 > >> get rid of prefix keywords completely? It gets hairy if the arch most
6 > >> always needs patches (FreeMiNT/IRIX comes to mind). However, this is one
7 > >> reason that we ask for everyone's help in submitting patches upstream.
8 > >
9 > > - "use <keyword> && bla" will no longer work (question; is it sane? well
10 > > we need it in *DEPENDs at the moment for sure)
11 >
12 > Reply to both you and mduft, same point.
13
14 ah, yes... so that one is not a problem.
15
16 >
17 > The profile sets ARCH which is put into USE. so "use $ARCH && bla" will
18 > still work.
19 >
20 > > - Portage needs to be patched not to look at keywords any more, solar's
21 >
22 > Set ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="**" in the profile, no patching needed.
23
24 hm. i'm afraid this won't work too good with regards to virtual
25 selection, etc, where one possible selection for a virtual would work,
26 but the _frist_ one in the list (which is selected by portage if all are
27 equal) doesn't work. i could list a few of those at least for interix,
28 winnt, hpux, aix, .... so that one won't work. most "|| ( )" would
29 break ... and i don't think it would be an option to change the ordering
30 of such || lists. (wow - reading this again i get knots in my brain...
31 do _you_ understand what i mean? :) )
32
33 Cheers, Markus
34
35 >
36 [snip]
37 > >
38 > > Or did I mis the point?
39 >
40 > Clearer now?
41 >
42 > -Jeremy
43 >
44 >