| 1 |
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 02:12:40PM +0100, David Leverton wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 14 August 2012 23:20, Micha?? G??rny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:02:04 +0100 |
| 4 |
> > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> There's still the issue that we haven't decided what [use] deps do |
| 6 |
> >> when they show up in profile files. We were sticking at 1 until we |
| 7 |
> >> worked that out. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Ah, about that. It will be useful if [use] deps in package.mask worked |
| 10 |
> > unlike in package.use.mask, thus giving us a tool to temporarily mask |
| 11 |
> > packages which are broken only with given flags. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Do we have a verdict on this? What Micha?? suggests for package.mask |
| 14 |
> sounds OK to me, but use deps in package.use, package.use.mask, etc |
| 15 |
> could be rather nastier, and I'd be inclined to ban those unless |
| 16 |
> someone has a better idea. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Use deps in all *.mask are already banned; whether by spec or |
| 19 |
convention- when they were added the potential was known, and stated |
| 20 |
as "don't do that". |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If we're going to try doing it now, analysis needs to be done to see |
| 23 |
what fallout there is *before trying to change the fucking thing*. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Offhand, I'd strongly bet no PM will handle a use dep atom in |
| 26 |
package.mask now; as for *.use.* abuse of use deps, that's frankly |
| 27 |
worse- it's chained deps, "if this use configuration, mask that flag". |
| 28 |
That's hell on wheels for the PM to implement. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Personally, I'd like to see 'dev-util/diffball[debug]' usable in |
| 31 |
package.use.mask (instead of dev-util/diffball debug), but it's not a |
| 32 |
backwards compatible change w/ existing PMs. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Either way, the verdict is "can't go anywhere till compatibility is |
| 35 |
figured out" :P |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
~harring |
Archives