Ian Stakenvicius <[email protected]> wrote: > On 15/11/13 10:54 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: >> .. >>> 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: >> [...] >> The latter indicates that this concept has no less than four >> dimensions. > > Well, reordering this a bit: [...] > So I don't think this is entirely unclear.
I think the point of Peter is not whether the *name* of the file is optimally chosen: His point is that the *semantics* (which is somehow reflected in the name) is too complex in the sense that it combines at least two concepts (USE-Flags and Stability) which from th user's point of view are completely unrelated. Only the developer's point of view of wanting to stabilize something earlier makes a connection between these concepts, but it is not really a natural conncetion: For someone who is not familiar with implicit implications of every USE-flag (i.e. a non-developer), the result looks like an almost random change of active USE-flags. Probably a lot of the confusion could be avoided if /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords would not implicitly unmask useflags. If this is not very hard to implement in portage, I would strongly vote to remove this implicit connection: This side effect is obviously the cause of the "dependency hell" examples.
