Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] depgraph: make --autounmask-continue imply --autounmask
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 22:08:10
Message-Id: 20170529150752.0948b500.dolsen@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] depgraph: make --autounmask-continue imply --autounmask by Zac Medico
1 On Mon, 29 May 2017 08:27:11 -0700
2 Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alexander Berntsen
5 > <bernalex@g.o> wrote:
6 >
7 > > Looks OK. Although I'm not a fan of the proposed change. Changes
8 > > like these make scripts a tiny bit more tedious. If you have a
9 > > bunch of --autounmask stuff in your script, you can now just do
10 > > --autounmask=n and turn it all off. This means you'll have to turn
11 > > off more stuff. And --autounmask-continue is supposed to be used
12 > > "with great care" anyway, so I think it's fine to demand users to
13 > > write --autounmask too.
14 >
15 > Yeah, we can go the other way and make --autounmask=n trigger a
16 > warning message when --autounmask-continue is also in the options. My
17 > main goal is to prevent confusion in this case.
18
19
20 Yeah, I prefer this over --autounmask-coninue automatically setting
21 autunmask to True.
22
23 --
24 Brian Dolbec <dolsen>