1 |
Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> On Friday 21 October 2005 05:56 am, Marius Mauch wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>>Petteri Räty wrote: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>>>Every once in a while I see people wanting to use nosomething use flags. |
7 |
>>>Why don't we have a package.use like we already have a package.mask |
8 |
>>>file? This would make it possible for developers to turn on use flags by |
9 |
>>>default in a way that would not cruft the base profiles for every local |
10 |
>>>use flag. |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>>The main problem I'd have with this is the stacking order, e.g. |
13 |
>>profiles/package.use has "app-misc/foo bar" and make.conf has |
14 |
>>"USE=-bar", which one should be preferred? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> |
17 |
> this is a no brainer |
18 |
> |
19 |
> profile use.defaults |
20 |
> profile package.use |
21 |
> profile make.defaults |
22 |
> user make.conf |
23 |
> user package.use |
24 |
> user env |
25 |
> -mike |
26 |
> |
27 |
|
28 |
I think profile package.use should come after make.defaults. After all |
29 |
package.use is package specific while make.defauls being generic. Of |
30 |
course it should not matter if we make it a policy that people can't |
31 |
turn off global use flags that are on by default on a per package basis, |
32 |
but I would like this possibility. For example there is the python use |
33 |
flag which is not needed with every package but there are packages that |
34 |
need the python use flag for some dependencies. Maybe this was not the |
35 |
best example but hopefully got the idea across. Of course this will be |
36 |
fixed when the new portage will come this way some day. |
37 |
|
38 |
Regads, |
39 |
Petteri |