-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi everyone,
I've written a patch [1] that implements support for use.force and
package.use.force as originally described by Sven Wegener [2] over a year ago.
Basically, this feature is the exact opposite of use.mask and package.use.mask.
It forces USE flags to be enabled. The only way to disable these forced flags
is to mask them via use.mask/package.use.mask or to "unforce" them in the
profile stack. Users can unforce them via
/etc/portage/profile/{use.force,package.use.force} in the usual "-flag" way.
If use.force is abused, then it will make it difficult for users to disable
unwanted USE flags. Therefore, the only flags that should be forced are those
that should almost certainly be enabled. This is complementary to USE masking,
which should only be used to mask flags that should almost certainly be
disabled.
We've discussed this feature on the gentoo-portage-dev mailing list [3] and
people have expressed a desire to have the use.force feature. People also want
a way to enable default flags via IUSE, but that is a distinctly separate
feature. Considering that we have a proposed implementation for use.force,
shall we add support it now?
Zac
[1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/branches/2.1/patches/use.force.patch
[2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/28727
[3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/2287
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFE19O+/ejvha5XGaMRAsf2AJ4nC+m6Jp7FBMQYp3u4O+woSzoZxQCgk0tF
FMWOljyTePUjqD535K6AeWk=
=FwyG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
