-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Santiago M. Mola wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Vlastimil Babka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think it's better to prevent this rather than waste time with bug >> reports like that. I asked Zac on IRC whether portage could filter such >> flags. He suggested using use.mask in profiles. Well since ARCH is also >> set by a profile, why not. Although a really persistent and stupid user >> could use.unmask, it's better than no protection. And then we can think >> how to replace the current ARCH->USE flag system with e.g. USE_EXPAND. >> What do you think? >> > > Seems like an acceptable workaround. > > For future EAPIs, ARCH could be a regular USE_EXPANDed flag as you > suggest, and package managers could filter any flag in USE which is > not listed in IUSE.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, my impression is that most people tend to think that certain profile-specific flags such as userland_* and kernel_* should be considered as implicit members of IUSE and therefore they shouldn't be explicitly listed in in IUSE. - -- Thanks, Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkjOw4YACgkQ/ejvha5XGaMILACfSQeRT7y1RzwTWWRnHvXBqFCh 9Q0An2AQZ9jJXLSWD1sKfL6+RdVNgEjl =Vh+a -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
