1 |
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 08:31:55PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
2 |
> Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
3 |
> > I read the portage-dev discussion, and I'm still not seeing how this is |
4 |
> > superior to make.defaults. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> The difference with use.force is that it prevents flags, that are |
7 |
> deemed extremely important, from being accidentally disabled by the |
8 |
> user. |
9 |
|
10 |
Name a few please. |
11 |
|
12 |
I know of selinux, and multilib- all that are effectively features, |
13 |
and exist in the use conditional namespace because they |
14 |
unfortunately straddle both (same issue with FEATURES=test). |
15 |
|
16 |
So... two flags I can think of, and it requires recording the setting |
17 |
in multiple spots (features, use, and now use.force). |
18 |
|
19 |
How is this improving it really? It blocks people from disabling |
20 |
automatic pulling in of selinux policies, presumably trying to prevent |
21 |
them *accidentally* disabling it. |
22 |
|
23 |
If the target is those flags... this patch doesn't really cut it |
24 |
either. |
25 |
|
26 |
Said patch is actually atom -> flags forcing, not global forcing. |
27 |
|
28 |
The original request (url to sven's discussion) was actual globally |
29 |
forced flags, not per package- would have to specify every single |
30 |
consumer of selinux flag (for example) to get the same. |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
> > If you want to be enabling local USE flags by |
34 |
> > default, this is no less of a hack than that is -- what's truly needed |
35 |
> > is some way to set per-package defaults. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> That's distinctly separate feature that is also needed. |
38 |
|
39 |
What you've implemented is just that however; the only difference is |
40 |
that it's forced rather then 'default' configuration state. |
41 |
|
42 |
|
43 |
> > The only valid use I can see is things like the architecture, libc, and |
44 |
> > so forth. And it seems like there ought to be better solutions to this |
45 |
> > than adding another hack on top of USE. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> The use.force feature is complementary to use.mask. It's exactly |
48 |
> the same concept, but inverted. |
49 |
|
50 |
And both files _should_ be implemented via use deps. |
51 |
|
52 |
I've yet to see the exit strategy for these files when use deps comes |
53 |
about also; when either portage grows it, or portage gets replaced, |
54 |
going to basically have one file that is non use dep restrictions, and |
55 |
one that allows use deps. |
56 |
|
57 |
Why again are these two files being added? Use use dep syntax in |
58 |
package.mask, no exit strategy needed- just requires splitting the |
59 |
deps out from there instead of reading two seperate files. |
60 |
|
61 |
~harring |