| 1 |
On 08/12/2017 12:57 AM, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> Like --autounmask-keep-masks, it can be useful to prevent --autounmask |
| 3 |
> from creating other kinds of changes: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> * keywords |
| 6 |
> * license |
| 7 |
> * use |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> In order to prevent changes to keywords, should we be consistent with |
| 10 |
> --autounmask-keep-masks, and call the option --autounmask-keep-keywords? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Other ideas? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> See: |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=622480 |
| 17 |
> https://github.com/gentoo/portage/pull/187 |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Should --autounmask-keep-keywords be independent of |
| 21 |
--autounmask-keep-masks, so that it's possible to accept unmask changes |
| 22 |
and reject keyword changes? Maybe it's not a very useful distinction in |
| 23 |
practice, but making them independent seems cleaner in some ways. |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Thanks, |
| 26 |
Zac |
Archives