Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] per-package use.mask (bug 96368)

[Zac Medico]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Brian Harring wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 12:23:58PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I've written a patch [1] that adds support for package.use.mask in the profile.  It should behave exactly as use.mask currently does except that it allows USE flags to be masked for specific packages rather than for all packages.
>>
>> In previous discussion it's been noted that package.mask + use deps would be an alternative way to express this type of masking.  However, package.use.mask + use deps would have the added ability to mask certain USE flags based on other flags that have been selected for a package.  Either way, the per-package use.mask functionality is certainly needed.  Shall we go ahead with the package.use.mask implementation or not?
>>
>> Zac
>>
>> [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/branches/2.1/patches/package.use.mask.patch
>
> Since you're sliding this in, why not slide it in using use dep
> syntax?

I haven't seen a specification for use dependencies yet, so I'm not quite sure how they'd work.

> No, not going to fight over this not being in package.mask, what I'm
> saying is this _is_ masking of a use dep atom, just use use dep syntax
> in the file instead.
>
> If y'all get use deps, it'll be a bit simpler for folks to support
> then the existing crappy format used imo.

> Plus, parsing it's easy.
> ~harring

Is the existing format of of use.mask bad?  What about package.use?  The implementation that I've proposed is a combination of these two formats that everyone is already familiar with.

Zac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFE06I+/ejvha5XGaMRArmfAJ9TvScSWpx55NLTMghex4EXZv3lZACeJqJV
uwUp2/rmg2c8RdXwxUji4EU=
=LQd/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list