Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Mask packages that don't cross-compile

[Daniel Barkalow]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Marius Mauch wrote:

> No. -foo is reserved for incremental negation. Maybe that isn't widely
> used in ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, but it has valid uses there and there can't be
> repurposed.

Oh, so -foo in package.keywords is used to override foo in 
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS? That makes sense, although I'm not entirely convinced 
that the logic currently in there actually works. I think the actually 
effect seems to be that it lets you try to build a known-broken (for 
your arch) ebuild, even in the current trunk. Both meanings make some 
sense, and I'm not clear why people would want to do either; I was just 
trying to be consistant with current behaviour. (I think it's a legacy 
from using "-*" in packages to mask them, and "-*" in package.keywords to 
unmask packages masked this way.)

> Is there a particular reason why you don't use the normal
> keyword logic (KEYWORDS=cross and setting -cross in p.keywords to mask a
> package), or simply a package.mask entry?

I don't want to use a package.mask entry because then you'd need a profile 
for cross-compiling every current profile, and these would all have the 
same set of changes to the underlying profiles: mask packages that try to 
run the programs they build.

I don't want to use ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=cross, because then I don't get only 
packages that are stable for my target architecture, and I want to use the 
normal package keyword information as to what versions are good for what 
architectures.

Using ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="cross arm" (which might be what you're suggesting; 
portage would automatically insert "arm" if that's my target ARCH, so 
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="cross" actually means ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="cross $ARCH") 
would be great, but that gives packages which have "arm" or "cross" (or 
"~arm" if I have that in package.keywords), when I want packages that have 
"arm" (or "cross", but they shouldn't) and don't have "-arm" (doesn't 
matter) or "-cross" (the important one).

I.e., my only change is really to the situation where your keywords are 
"foo bar" and a package has "foo -bar". Currently, the package is not 
masked (because "foo" matches "foo"); I want it masked (because "bar" 
negatively matches "-bar"). (In fact, the current truck totally ignores 
"-bar" in a package's keywords, assuming that no package has "-bar" and 
either "bar" or "~bar" and that simply failing to match any keyword you 
have, since you won't have "-bar", is sufficient.)

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list