| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Hi everyone, |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I've written a patch [1] that implements support for use.force and package.use.force as originally described by Sven Wegener [2] over a year ago. Basically, this feature is the exact opposite of use.mask and package.use.mask. It forces USE flags to be enabled. The only way to disable these forced flags is to mask them via use.mask/package.use.mask or to "unforce" them in the profile stack. Users can unforce them via /etc/portage/profile/{use.force,package.use.force} in the usual "-flag" way. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
If use.force is abused, then it will make it difficult for users to disable unwanted USE flags. Therefore, the only flags that should be forced are those that should almost certainly be enabled. This is complementary to USE masking, which should only be used to mask flags that should almost certainly be disabled. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
We've discussed this feature on the gentoo-portage-dev mailing list [3] and people have expressed a desire to have the use.force feature. People also want a way to enable default flags via IUSE, but that is a distinctly separate feature. Considering that we have a proposed implementation for use.force, shall we add support it now? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Zac |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
[1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/branches/2.1/patches/use.force.patch |
| 15 |
[2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/28727 |
| 16 |
[3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/2287 |
| 17 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 18 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
iD8DBQFE19O+/ejvha5XGaMRAsf2AJ4nC+m6Jp7FBMQYp3u4O+woSzoZxQCgk0tF |
| 21 |
FMWOljyTePUjqD535K6AeWk= |
| 22 |
=FwyG |
| 23 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives