On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:47:30PM +0200, Harald van D??k wrote: > Just a thought, but how about making use.mask lock flags instead of > forcing them off? Meaning, if use.mask contains ncurses, and > make.defaults contains USE="ncurses", this would have the same effect as > what ncurses in use.force would do. IMO, this would keep things a bit > simpler. But again, just a thought; I don't know if it'd cause any > problems for portage.
I like to have them separate. USE and use.mask are incremental, that means we might lock (via use.mask) a flag that is not set by the profile the use.mask is in. This might result in unwanted locking. Considering we want to use.mask (as in the old meaning, forcing it to be off) ncurses in the current profile, then we also need to USE="-ncurses" in the profile to make sure the flag is off and not activated by another profile. This needs to be done for all flags that should be use.mask'ed and that are, depending on the profile, quite a lot. Means double management work. Other solution is to modify portage to evaluate every use.mask and USE on a per profile level. But that's somehow against the cascading aspect of the profiles. > Question: with use.force, what happens if a flag is both masked and > forced? Does it get turned on, get turned off, or get portage to > complain and abort? Good question. I would prefer to turn the flag off and make portage print a message. Sven -- Sven Wegener Gentoo Linux Developer http://www.gentoo.org/
pgpqbNNX8aW3a.pgp
Description: PGP signature
