Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force support

[Harald van Dijk]

Sven Wegener wrote:
> I like to have them separate. USE and use.mask are incremental, that
> means we might lock (via use.mask) a flag that is not set by the profile
> the use.mask is in. This might result in unwanted locking. Considering
> we want to use.mask (as in the old meaning, forcing it to be off)
> ncurses in the current profile, then we also need to USE="-ncurses" in
> the profile to make sure the flag is off and not activated by another
> profile. This needs to be done for all flags that should be use.mask'ed
> and that are, depending on the profile, quite a lot. Means double
> management work. Other solution is to modify portage to evaluate every
> use.mask and USE on a per profile level. But that's somehow against the
> cascading aspect of the profiles.

Yeah, I didn't think of that. Good point.

>>Question: with use.force, what happens if a flag is both masked and
>>forced? Does it get turned on, get turned off, or get portage to
>>complain and abort?
>
>
> Good question. I would prefer to turn the flag off and make portage
> print a message.

Sounds good enough to me. Just make sure it doesn't get printed for
every package if something gets broken after emerge sync :)
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list