| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Vlastimil Babka <caster@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I think it's better to prevent this rather than waste time with bug |
| 4 |
> reports like that. I asked Zac on IRC whether portage could filter such |
| 5 |
> flags. He suggested using use.mask in profiles. Well since ARCH is also |
| 6 |
> set by a profile, why not. Although a really persistent and stupid user |
| 7 |
> could use.unmask, it's better than no protection. And then we can think |
| 8 |
> how to replace the current ARCH->USE flag system with e.g. USE_EXPAND. |
| 9 |
> What do you think? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Seems like an acceptable workaround. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
For future EAPIs, ARCH could be a regular USE_EXPANDed flag as you |
| 15 |
suggest, and package managers could filter any flag in USE which is |
| 16 |
not listed in IUSE. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Regards, |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Santiago M. Mola |
| 21 |
Jabber ID: cooldwind@×××××.com |
Archives