| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Santiago M. Mola wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Vlastimil Babka <caster@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> I think it's better to prevent this rather than waste time with bug |
| 7 |
>> reports like that. I asked Zac on IRC whether portage could filter such |
| 8 |
>> flags. He suggested using use.mask in profiles. Well since ARCH is also |
| 9 |
>> set by a profile, why not. Although a really persistent and stupid user |
| 10 |
>> could use.unmask, it's better than no protection. And then we can think |
| 11 |
>> how to replace the current ARCH->USE flag system with e.g. USE_EXPAND. |
| 12 |
>> What do you think? |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Seems like an acceptable workaround. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> For future EAPIs, ARCH could be a regular USE_EXPANDed flag as you |
| 18 |
> suggest, and package managers could filter any flag in USE which is |
| 19 |
> not listed in IUSE. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, my impression is that |
| 22 |
most people tend to think that certain profile-specific flags such |
| 23 |
as userland_* and kernel_* should be considered as implicit members |
| 24 |
of IUSE and therefore they shouldn't be explicitly listed in in IUSE. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
- -- |
| 27 |
Thanks, |
| 28 |
Zac |
| 29 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 30 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkjOw4YACgkQ/ejvha5XGaMILACfSQeRT7y1RzwTWWRnHvXBqFCh |
| 33 |
9Q0An2AQZ9jJXLSWD1sKfL6+RdVNgEjl |
| 34 |
=Vh+a |
| 35 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives