Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Wyatt Epp <wyatt.epp@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Autounmask changes
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 19:24:26
In Reply to: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Autounmask changes by Duncan <>
1 On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:
2 > Alexander Berntsen posted on Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:56:28 +0200 as excerpted:
3 >>
4 >> emerge foo # this will do what --autounmask does today
5 >> emerge foo --autounmask # this will do what --autounmask-write does
6 >> emerge foo -a # this will do what --ask --autounmask-write does
7 >> emerge foo --autounmask=n # this will do what --autounmask=n does
8 >>
9 >> The problem here is that there is no way to do e.g. emerge foo --ask,
10 >> and get suggestions any longer. You can either have it prompt to write
11 >> stuff, or you can have it not do anything -- but you can't explicitly
12 >> have it suggest stuff without prompting to write. This is bad design.
13 >>
14 Is there really any situation where the user would benefit from not
15 having the suggestions? That's sort of rhetorical because it's on by
16 default, but the point is more that Portage already takes a rather
17 proactive stance with regard to informing the user about the details
18 of slot and version conflicts; what's a few more lines? (And if that
19 IS, indeed, a problem, there's always --quiet.)
21 Regardless of that, writing keywords as a side-effect of --ask is not
22 a good path. My personal suggestion would instead be that
23 --autounmask only do exactly what it says: automatically resolve
24 minimum keywords needed to merge the depgraph and put them where they
25 need to be. When used in conjunction with --ask, it would then tell
26 you "These atoms will be appended to package.keywords" or whatever
27 file it chooses. Unfortunately historical baggage may prevent that,
28 but it's a nice thought.
30 > * I don't want portage writing mask/use changes on its own under any
31 > circumstances, as I use directories and have my own idea of what files I
32 > want stuff in.
33 >
34 I have this same issue as I give every category its own file. Can we
35 generalise this in such a way that finer-grained control over write
36 location could be added? (Off the top of my head, I'm imagining
37 passing the atom through something like a FILE_REGEX or maybe an
38 optional script parameter, and the output is the filename within
39 package.keywords/)
41 -Wyatt


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Autounmask changes Alexander Berntsen <bernalex@g.o>