1 |
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 5:11 PM Dennis Schridde <devurandom@×××.net> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On Tuesday, 24 July 2018 20:57:09 CEST Rich Freeman wrote: |
4 |
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:32 PM Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > > I don't think the process needs to be simplified much more than this; |
6 |
> > > each layer above has its purpose. However I do very much want to |
7 |
> > > caution on making it more complicated, especially with the addition of |
8 |
> > > syntax that allows setting or ignoring useflag state changes in a way |
9 |
> > > that will jumble up these layers. |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > I think as long as it is a heirarchy it will be straightforward enough. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > If we introduce a ^ operator that unsets a flag, the only question is |
14 |
> > how far that propagates down the layers, and into what kinds of |
15 |
> > layers: |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > Does a profile ^flag undo an IUSE +flag? |
18 |
> > Does a make.conf ^flag undo a profile +flag? An IUSE +flag? A |
19 |
> > profile flag mask? |
20 |
> > Does a package.use ^flag undo a make.conf +flag? A profile +flag, an |
21 |
> > IUSE +flag? Etc... |
22 |
> |
23 |
> I guess the question here is: Is there an official order in which the use |
24 |
> settings from the different profiles and config files have to be applied? |
25 |
> |
26 |
> I think my initial assumption of this order was wrong, USE flags only have two |
27 |
> states and indeed it seems that the ^ USE operator is not necessary, because |
28 |
> the - operator already serves the same purpose. |
29 |
> |
30 |
|
31 |
Kinda sorta. In the flag is either set or it isn't. However, I think |
32 |
the intent here was to strip out the effects of profiles, but keep the |
33 |
effects of IUSE. The question then becomes what other contexts can it |
34 |
be used in, and in each case what does it undo? |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Rich |