| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Brian Harring wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 08:33:51AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 6 |
>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 00:22:50 -0700 Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> |
| 7 |
>> wrote: |
| 8 |
>> | On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 07:23:31AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 9 |
>> | > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 21:41:39 -0700 Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> |
| 10 |
>> | > wrote: |
| 11 |
>> | > | > The use.force feature is complementary to use.mask. It's |
| 12 |
>> | > | > exactly the same concept, but inverted. |
| 13 |
>> | > | |
| 14 |
>> | > | And both files _should_ be implemented via use deps. |
| 15 |
>> | > |
| 16 |
>> | > Huh? How? |
| 17 |
>> | |
| 18 |
>> | forcing cxx on via package.mask for gcc |
| 19 |
>> | sys-devel/gcc[-cxx] |
| 20 |
>> | |
| 21 |
>> | forcing it off |
| 22 |
>> | sys-devel/gcc[cxx] |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> Mmm. See, that'll lead to error messages if the user sets USE=cxx and |
| 25 |
>> then tries to install gcc. With the .mask/.force, it's handled |
| 26 |
>> automatically and indicated visibly by use flags being (parened). |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> The error msg would be "blah is masked", with an explanation of why. |
| 29 |
> Pretty standard fair, portage already does the same now for non use |
| 30 |
> dep maskings. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
It does seem appealing to unify the package.use.mask and package.use.force functionality into a single file that acts like package.mask with use-deps support. If we do it this way, devs won't be able to start using package.use.mask until a new implementation is ready. AFAIK Paludis already has support for separate package.use.mask and package.use.force, so they'd have to change their implementation to be compatible with the new unified format. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> As is, the package.use.mask patch that got shoved in gives _no_ |
| 35 |
> indication that it's forcing a flag off for a pkg- leaves the user |
| 36 |
> wondering wtf occured once they spot the flag is disabled. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Point there is that arguing against it based on UI code is a |
| 39 |
> non-arguement; either implementation (for portage at least) requires |
| 40 |
> mangling portage's -vp code to indicate the forced disabling/enabling. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Some indication in the UI about flags being masked and/or forced would be nice, and prevent user confusion (as long as they understand the UI output). |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Zac |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 47 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
iD8DBQFE2NCi/ejvha5XGaMRAvpaAKDghZnY4yI98yte0X88h6AjpPbsFgCePu6J |
| 50 |
x0WSvPuI/FO5Z41bgxdWLAQ= |
| 51 |
=NWMt |
| 52 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives