-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 15/11/13 10:54 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Matt Turner wrote: >> I think in large part recently it's because of use.stable.mask >> and package.use.stable.mask. These really are a nightmare for >> users. > .. >> I think most of the confusion is caused by the necessity to put >> a *stable* package atom into package.keywords to unmask a *USE* >> flag. > > A lot can be learned just from the filenames: > > use.stable.mask package.use.stable.mask > > The latter indicates that this concept has no less than four > dimensions. > > Let's enumerate and associate: > > 1. use - USE flags - no problem, Gentoo users either love USE flags > or leave 2. stable - arch vs. ~arch - no problem, even installation > docs describe it 3. mask - masked packages - OK, at some point > people encounter masked packages 4. package - per-package stuff - > like with /etc/portage/package.use > > How stable and mask interact with USE is absolutely unclear and > usability of this is very close to zero.
Well, reordering this a bit: 1 - package: so this is per-package. 2 - use: so this has to do with use flags, per package 3 - stable: so this has to do with stable systems' use flags, per package 4 - mask: so this is disallowing something on stable systems' use flags, per package. So I don't think this is entirely unclear. I suppose it might be a bit more clear if it was called 'package.stable.use.mask', or the ideal english version of 'stable.package.use.mask', but i think renaming it at this point doesn't really provide that much of an advantage and definitely doesn't change what it does. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlKGRkUACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAu+gD/U6rExYFTC7fUMFIuQgbgJwRn I0sA9NSixk6gtVj8E8IA/i1jzlQnkjHQFnHw3qHnTtdUGpJHFn/0saxItbn6ieE9 =+7UA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
