1 |
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:36:00 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> |
2 |
wrote: |
3 |
| > | > It'd also make handling use masking much easier. |
4 |
| > | |
5 |
| > | why ? because there wouldnt be anything to mask ? |
6 |
| > |
7 |
| > I'm pretty sure that USE_EXPAND has to be the same across all |
8 |
| > profiles, so no, masking would still be required. I'm thinking more |
9 |
| > avoiding the cases where amd64 users set CPU_FEATURES="blah", and |
10 |
| > the fooplayer package only has blah code written for x86 CPUs. |
11 |
| |
12 |
| huh ? in your schema, the variable itself would be name spaced, so |
13 |
| there would be amd64_CPU_FEATURES, x86_CPU_FEATURES, etc..., there |
14 |
| wouldnt be just CPU_FEATURES |
15 |
|
16 |
My example was demonstrating a problem in the non-namespaced case, not |
17 |
the namespaced solution. Expanding this with an example... |
18 |
|
19 |
Assuming that x86 and amd64 both support foo and bar, and that the baz |
20 |
app supports both on x86 and only foo on amd64: |
21 |
|
22 |
No namespacing: |
23 |
|
24 |
x86 # [ebuild N] app-misc/baz USE="oink" CPU_FEATURES="foo baz" |
25 |
amd64 # [ebuild N] app-misc/baz USE="oink" CPU_FEATURES="foo baz" |
26 |
|
27 |
With namespacing: |
28 |
|
29 |
x86 # [ebuild N] app-misc/baz USE="oink" x86_CPU_FEATURES="foo baz" |
30 |
amd64_CPU_FEATURES="(-foo)" |
31 |
amd64 # [ebuild N] app-misc/baz USE="oink" x86_CPU_FEATURES="(-foo) |
32 |
(-baz)" amd64_CPU_FEATURES="foo" |
33 |
|
34 |
With namespacing, and with USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN set in subprofiles which |
35 |
may well be illegal: |
36 |
|
37 |
x86 # [ebuild N] app-misc/baz USE="oink" x86_CPU_FEATURES="foo baz" |
38 |
amd64 # [ebuild N] app-misc/baz USE="oink" amd64_CPU_FEATURES="foo" |
39 |
|
40 |
The output's a bit longer, but it avoids telling the user that they're |
41 |
getting something that they aren't. |
42 |
|
43 |
-- |
44 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
45 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
46 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
-- |
49 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |