Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting: Tuesday 14 August 2012, 19:00 UTC

[Michał Górny]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:01:31 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 00:20:21 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> > > There's still the issue that we haven't decided what [use] deps do
> > > when they show up in profile files. We were sticking at 1 until we
> > > worked that out.
> >
> > Ah, about that. It will be useful if [use] deps in package.mask
> > worked unlike in package.use.mask, thus giving us a tool to
> > temporarily mask packages which are broken only with given flags.
> >
> > For example, likely it was potentially useful to do something like:
> >
> >     # something support with intel broken in this version
> >     =media-libs/mesa-N.N.N[someflag,video_cards_intel,!video_cards_radeon,!video_cards_nvidia]
> >
> > With meaning: mask mesa-N.N.N if 'someflag' and 'video_cards_intel'
> > are enabled, and 'video_cards_radeon' an 'video_cards_nvidia' are
> > disabled.
> >
> > This will make lives easier both for devs (who wouldn't have to
> > work-around this) and users (for those who will benefit from new
> > mesa, and those who will not upgrade and break their systems).
>
> The issue there is whether the package mangler should try to solve
> that by tinkering with which flags are selected. The way Paludis
> implements it currently, it would just treat the package as being
> masked and wouldn't try the upgrade; I believe at one point Brian was
> talking about doing something clever with Pkgcore there and using
> that syntax to do use flag masking instead.
>
> Whichever route we go, there's also the UI question: how do we present
> this to users in a sensible way?

The intent is not to anything clever but just mask the package. Intel
users don't want mesa without support for their card; they simply don't
want the broken version at all.

It should be presented alike regular package.mask, with the whole
atom string.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny