| 1 |
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 03:56:49PM -0400, Dan Meltzer wrote: |
| 2 |
> Seems like use.force might be a bad name..... when I first read the |
| 3 |
> email, and saw use.force, the first thing that came to mind was |
| 4 |
> "gentoo forcing something?" and even after reading the email, I |
| 5 |
> wouldn't expect to be able to override something that was "forced." |
| 6 |
> I'm not sure what a better name would be, but I think there may be |
| 7 |
> one... |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
use.force might not be the best name, but it's what we do with it for |
| 10 |
most of our users. Being able to -flag in /etc/portage/profile/use.force |
| 11 |
is just because /etc/portage/profile gets added to the cascaded profile |
| 12 |
chain. Everything we add to portage that allows a profile to revert |
| 13 |
some behaviour added by parent profiles, can also be done with |
| 14 |
/etc/portage/profile and it's good that way. So, that we're able to |
| 15 |
-flag in use.force is just part of the way cascaded profiles work. It's |
| 16 |
not a feature that will be added just to support use.force. Primary |
| 17 |
reason for use.force is to have a way to activate flags even if USE="-*" |
| 18 |
is in make.conf or environment. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> also, wouldn't the override be in use.unforce? >_< |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
No, looking at package.mask in profiles for example, package.unmask is a |
| 23 |
level that comes after package.mask. First we mask packages and then we |
| 24 |
check if the user want some of them to be unmasked. The actual removing |
| 25 |
of a mask can be done with -mask'ing the exact mask in package.mask. |
| 26 |
That's rarely used, but that's the way cascading profile work in |
| 27 |
portage. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
May the force be with you, |
| 30 |
Sven |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Sven Wegener |
| 34 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 35 |
http://www.gentoo.org/ |
Archives