On Friday 27 April 2012 00:43:15 Jonathan Callen wrote: > On 04/26/2012 06:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > I'd like to suggest we introduce the following very useful > > feature, as soon as possible (which likely means in the next > > EAPI?): > > > > * two new files in profile directories supported, > > package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force * syntax is > > identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force * meaning is > > identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force, except that > > the resulting rules are ONLY applied iff a stable keyword is in > > use > > As "a stable keyword is in use" is either ambiguous or outright wrong > (depending on exactly what was meant by that), I would propose that > one of the following cases replace that: > > * At least one keyword beginning with "~" or the value "**" is in the > global ACCEPT_KEYWORDS. > * At least one keyword beginning with "~" or the value "**" is in the > ACCEPT_KEYWORDS used for the package in question. > > This is required because on a typical ~amd64 system, the effective > value of ACCEPT_KEYWORDS is "amd64 ~amd64" -- which would be covered > under "a stable keyword is in use" (the same applies for other arches > as well).
i don't think that wording is correct and misses the point. simple example of
how this should work:
if package.use.stable.force has:
cat/pkg foo
and then cat/pkg/pkg-0.ebuild has:
KEYWORDS="~amd64 x86"
the forcing of "foo" would apply to people who are ARCH=x86 (regardless of
their ACCEPT_KEYWORDS containing ~x86), but not apply to people who are
ARCH=amd64. once the ebuild changes to KEYWORDS="amd64 x86", then it would
apply to both.
i.e. the keyword matching is to the ebuild, not to the user's ACCEPT_KEYWORDS.
or Andreas can clarify.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
