Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo News file about GNOME 3.2's unmasking
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:07:09
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo News file about GNOME 3.2's unmasking by Nirbheek Chauhan
On 11/26/2011 10:55 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote: >> On L, 2011-11-26 at 12:43 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >>> A question: it currently restricts only on the basis of If-Installed, >>> but is there a workaround for the absence Display-If-Visible filter? >>> If there isn't, I'll commit it as-is. >> >> I think it'd be bad to get the news item out like that now for stable >> users, and then after a long time once we stabilize it (if ever), it's >> been long forgotten and marked away as read. Maybe the keyword checks >> should be re-added for now and edited away later if necessary (before >> stabling)? >> > > I actually removed that keyword thing because I wasn't sure if it > worked with ~arch specifiers. I think it's easier to just bump the > news file version when we stabilize 3.2 so that people see it again. > Presuming that that will work.
GLEP 42 refers to GLEP 22, which says nothing of ~arch specifiers. The current portage code literally compares the news item's keyword to the current profile's ARCH variable, so ~arch specifiers will not match. The code is in the DisplayKeywordRestriction class:;a=blob;f=pym/portage/ -- Thanks, Zac


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Gentoo News file about GNOME 3.2's unmasking Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o>