Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o, "M. J. Everitt" <m.j.everitt@×××.org>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] emerge: add --autounmask-keep-keywords option (bug 622480)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 00:19:29
Message-Id: 98b04e63-51b3-a4e9-20bf-f67c43fea66f@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] emerge: add --autounmask-keep-keywords option (bug 622480) by "M. J. Everitt"
1 On 08/13/2017 04:37 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote:
2 > On 12/08/17 19:08, Zac Medico wrote:
3 >> The option prevents --autounmask from making changes to
4 >> package.accept_keywords. This option does not imply
5 >> --autounmask-keep-masks, so --autounmask is still allowed
6 >> to create package.unmask changes unless the
7 >> --autounmask-keep-masks is also specified.
8 >>
9 >> X-Gentoo-bug: 622480
10 >> X-Gentoo-bug-url: https://bugs.gentoo.org/622480
11 >> ---
12 >> man/emerge.1 | 7 +++
13 >> pym/_emerge/depgraph.py | 12 ++--
14 >> pym/_emerge/main.py | 9 +++
15 >> .../resolver/test_autounmask_keep_keywords.py | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++
16 >> 4 files changed, 92 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
17 >> create mode 100644 pym/portage/tests/resolver/test_autounmask_keep_keywords.py
18 >>
19 >> diff --git a/man/emerge.1 b/man/emerge.1
20 >> index ffb453efb..12a0db166 100644
21 >> --- a/man/emerge.1
22 >> +++ b/man/emerge.1
23 >> @@ -395,6 +395,13 @@ using the \'=\' operator will be written. With this
24 >> option, \'>=\' operators will be used whenever possible.
25 >> USE and license changes always use the latter behavior.
26 >> .TP
27 >> +.BR "\-\-autounmask\-keep\-keywords [ y | n ]"
28 >> +If \-\-autounmask is enabled, no package.accept_keywords changes will
29 >> +be created. This leads to unsatisfied dependencies if any keyword
30 >> +changes are required. This option does not imply \-\-autounmask\-keep\-masks,
31 >> +so \-\-autounmask is still allowed to create package.unmask changes unless
32 >> +the \-\-autounmask\-keep\-masks is also specified.
33 >> +.TP
34 >
35 > OK, considering the proposal patch I put together for
36 > -[autounmask]-use-only .. how does this/these [other] patch[es] compare?
37
38 You'll get the same result as --autounmask-use-only if you use
39 --autounmask-keep-keywords together with --autounmask-keep-masks.
40
41 This way, we can also add --autounmask-keep-license and
42 --autounmask-keep-use options if we want, and the meaning is very easy
43 to explain. The meaning of --autounmask-use-only would have required
44 more explanation, since it allowed license changes in addition to USE
45 changes.
46 --
47 Thanks,
48 Zac

Replies