| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 5 |
> I read the portage-dev discussion, and I'm still not seeing how this is |
| 6 |
> superior to make.defaults. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are deemed extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the user. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> If you want to be enabling local USE flags by |
| 11 |
> default, this is no less of a hack than that is -- what's truly needed |
| 12 |
> is some way to set per-package defaults. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
That's distinctly separate feature that is also needed. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> The only valid use I can see is things like the architecture, libc, and |
| 17 |
> so forth. And it seems like there ought to be better solutions to this |
| 18 |
> than adding another hack on top of USE. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The use.force feature is complementary to use.mask. It's exactly the same concept, but inverted. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> BTW your mail was really difficult to reply to, since it didn't have any |
| 23 |
> line wrapping. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Sorry about that. I don't like forced line wrapping but I understand that many email clients don't behave very well without it. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Zac |
| 28 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 29 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
iD8DBQFE2AWq/ejvha5XGaMRAkxCAKDeBiDdrPFoUxMpSbin0OAunF0ZDwCgmnB5 |
| 32 |
n84YnXuED/W01dTO4vl5nyc= |
| 33 |
=cGVg |
| 34 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives