| 1 |
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:47:30PM +0200, Harald van D??k wrote: |
| 2 |
> Just a thought, but how about making use.mask lock flags instead of |
| 3 |
> forcing them off? Meaning, if use.mask contains ncurses, and |
| 4 |
> make.defaults contains USE="ncurses", this would have the same effect as |
| 5 |
> what ncurses in use.force would do. IMO, this would keep things a bit |
| 6 |
> simpler. But again, just a thought; I don't know if it'd cause any |
| 7 |
> problems for portage. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I like to have them separate. USE and use.mask are incremental, that |
| 10 |
means we might lock (via use.mask) a flag that is not set by the profile |
| 11 |
the use.mask is in. This might result in unwanted locking. Considering |
| 12 |
we want to use.mask (as in the old meaning, forcing it to be off) |
| 13 |
ncurses in the current profile, then we also need to USE="-ncurses" in |
| 14 |
the profile to make sure the flag is off and not activated by another |
| 15 |
profile. This needs to be done for all flags that should be use.mask'ed |
| 16 |
and that are, depending on the profile, quite a lot. Means double |
| 17 |
management work. Other solution is to modify portage to evaluate every |
| 18 |
use.mask and USE on a per profile level. But that's somehow against the |
| 19 |
cascading aspect of the profiles. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Question: with use.force, what happens if a flag is both masked and |
| 22 |
> forced? Does it get turned on, get turned off, or get portage to |
| 23 |
> complain and abort? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Good question. I would prefer to turn the flag off and make portage |
| 26 |
print a message. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Sven |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Sven Wegener |
| 32 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 33 |
http://www.gentoo.org/ |
Archives