On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 03:56:49PM -0400, Dan Meltzer wrote: > Seems like use.force might be a bad name..... when I first read the > email, and saw use.force, the first thing that came to mind was > "gentoo forcing something?" and even after reading the email, I > wouldn't expect to be able to override something that was "forced." > I'm not sure what a better name would be, but I think there may be > one...
use.force might not be the best name, but it's what we do with it for most of our users. Being able to -flag in /etc/portage/profile/use.force is just because /etc/portage/profile gets added to the cascaded profile chain. Everything we add to portage that allows a profile to revert some behaviour added by parent profiles, can also be done with /etc/portage/profile and it's good that way. So, that we're able to -flag in use.force is just part of the way cascaded profiles work. It's not a feature that will be added just to support use.force. Primary reason for use.force is to have a way to activate flags even if USE="-*" is in make.conf or environment. > also, wouldn't the override be in use.unforce? >_< No, looking at package.mask in profiles for example, package.unmask is a level that comes after package.mask. First we mask packages and then we check if the user want some of them to be unmasked. The actual removing of a mask can be done with -mask'ing the exact mask in package.mask. That's rarely used, but that's the way cascading profile work in portage. May the force be with you, Sven -- Sven Wegener Gentoo Linux Developer http://www.gentoo.org/
pgpigbISibGmy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
