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

[Brian Harring]

On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:46:34PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 12:38:39PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> >> I haven't seen a specification for use dependencies yet, so I'm not quite sure how they'd work.
> > cat/pkg-ver[use1,use2,-use3,use4]
> > cat/pkg-ver[use]
> > etc.
>
> Okay, so the only difference from package.use format is that whitespace is replaced by square brackets and commas?

Yep- bracket/comma usage allows the atom and use reqs to bundled as 
one token.

> >> 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.
> >
> > No... the issue is that this _is_ basically a crappy form of
> > package.mask supporting use-deps; why use an alt syntax for it then?
>
> Well, no part of portage currently supports use-deps.  Therefore,
> use-deps are an alternate syntax in themselves.  The implementation
> that I've proposed uses the same type of syntax that portage already
> uses in package.use files.

use-dep syntax is usable globally however- package.use is strictly 
config file, if/when portage gains use dep, killing off the 
package.use format for the globally usable use-dep will need to occur.

With that in mind, why not just do it from the get go?

> > Just use what was originally intended, and at some point down the line
> > when either portage grows use deps, or it gets replaced, folks can
> > just copy the package.use.mask into package.mask, and wipe the file.
> >
> > ~harring
>
> Such a migration (if it ever takes place) could just as well be
> performed by a simple conversion tool.
Or if just using use-dep, a cat :P
~harring