Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCHES] Remove --autounmask, rename --autounmask-write to --autounmask

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 21/11/13 14:34, Duncan wrote:
> I read comment 10, and am objecting based on it
You have fundamentally misunderstood everything in it. Please reread it.

> 1) Because the dependency calculations take time, I normally use
> --ask so I don't have to have portage redo those calculations if I
>  like what its telling me it's going to do.
>
> 2) Under no circumstances do I want portage rewriting masks, etc,
> on its own, not even with config-protect.
>
> 3) Despite that, I find the suggestions it makes saying what it
> /thinks/ it needs unmasked useful -- I just want to write them to
> the file I want, with the comment I want (sometimes with a bit
> different atom, too), which portage wouldn't do.
All of this is irrelevant to my patches.

> 4) You're saying emerge --ask foo would write the config
No. Please read comment 10[0].

> 5) There needs to be a way to get portage's current emerge --ask
> --autounmask foo (without --autounmask-write)
There is. This doesn't change in my patches. Please read the code or
comment 10[0].

> I'd tend to agree, but in that case, why are you wanting to do away
>  with the ability to have portage spit out its opinion, without
> having portage actually do the write, while using --ask?
Because it can be done without --ask. See comment 10[0].


[0]  <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481578#c10>
- -- 
Alexander
alexander@××××××.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlKOF3YACgkQRtClrXBQc7XcYgD/bW0XXYgXwkA7CvtFVCphboxd
MQNdi8HTZ3SCP8N+mRIBAIEhlHJsmtLqhreJNNWc+0KeSOR0IaOoXz0J16kAjF8c
=Te1c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----