| 1 |
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:38:39PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 12:23:58PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Hi everyone, |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >> 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. |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> 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? |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >> Zac |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/branches/2.1/patches/package.use.mask.patch |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Since you're sliding this in, why not slide it in using use dep |
| 15 |
> > syntax? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I haven't seen a specification for use dependencies yet, so I'm not quite sure how they'd work. |
| 18 |
cat/pkg-ver[use1,use2,-use3,use4] |
| 19 |
cat/pkg-ver[use] |
| 20 |
etc. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
pretty simple, and was layed out in the original "we need use deps" |
| 23 |
bug. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> > No, not going to fight over this not being in package.mask, what I'm |
| 26 |
> > saying is this _is_ masking of a use dep atom, just use use dep syntax |
| 27 |
> > in the file instead. |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> > If y'all get use deps, it'll be a bit simpler for folks to support |
| 30 |
> > then the existing crappy format used imo. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> > Plus, parsing it's easy. |
| 33 |
> > ~harring |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> 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. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
No... the issue is that this _is_ basically a crappy form of |
| 38 |
package.mask supporting use-deps; why use an alt syntax for it then? |
| 39 |
Just use what was originally intended, and at some point down the line |
| 40 |
when either portage grows use deps, or it gets replaced, folks can |
| 41 |
just copy the package.use.mask into package.mask, and wipe the file. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
~harring |
Archives