On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:57:58 +0200 Thomas de Grenier de Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, if "pkgprofile" was stronger than "conf", then this dev could > have introduced the "xml" flag and added "pkg/foo -xml" in the base > profile. And the USE="xml" user would either have merged the package > with the right defaults without wondering, or would have seen at > --pretend time that there was something unusual here (ie, the "xml" > flag being off), and would have had a chance to take whatever decision > he want. The last sentence is the real issue here, most people would be *very* confused if their make.conf flags are (apparently) ignored. There is already quite a bit of confusion on how certain flags are en-/disabled (like arch flags or the masked mmx+co on amd64 for example). I don't see much use in making this confusion even greater. However one way to reduce that confusion would be to add another indicator in the depgraph display to list the "origin" of a flag (the last place that affected this flag) similar to getmaskingstatus(), but that's not exactly a trivial change. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. -- [email protected] mailing list
