1 |
On 01/10/2017 11:30 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 |
>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Zac Medico wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> On 01/10/2017 01:56 PM, Bernard Cafarelli wrote: |
5 |
>>> But repoman replied with a batch of dependency.bad errors... |
6 |
>>> Does package.use.mask (stable and ~arch) have a higher priority on |
7 |
>>> package.use.stable.mask (stable only)? Bug or intended behavior? |
8 |
> |
9 |
>> If I understand you correctly, then it's the intended behavior. If the |
10 |
>> flag is masked in both package.use.mask and package.use.stable.mask, |
11 |
>> then the package.use.stable.mask setting is irrelevant because both |
12 |
>> package.use.mask and package.use.stable.mask are considered when |
13 |
>> calculating use.mask settings for any given package. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> I believe this is not correct. package.use.stable.mask should take |
16 |
> precedence within the same profile: |
17 |
> https://projects.gentoo.org/pms/6/pms.html#x1-58002r1 |
18 |
|
19 |
Oh, right. I misunderstood because I misread the original email. I |
20 |
should have looked at the profile state to avoid a misunderstanding: |
21 |
|
22 |
profiles/arch/amd64/package.use.mask:gnustep-base/gnustep-make -libobjc2 |
23 |
profiles/arch/x86/package.use.mask:gnustep-base/gnustep-make -libobjc2 |
24 |
profiles/base/package.use.mask:>=gnustep-base/gnustep-make-2.6.2 libobjc2 |
25 |
|
26 |
I've checked the portage code and package.use.stable.mask does in fact |
27 |
take precedence within the same profile, because the UseManager |
28 |
getUseForce method uses an algorithm equivalent to the one specified in pms. |
29 |
-- |
30 |
Thanks, |
31 |
Zac |