Am Dienstag, 24. Juli 2018, 19:15:19 CEST schrieb Ian Stakenvicius: > On 2018-07-21 9:33 a.m., Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 5:33 AM Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> Sure, why not? So ^flag would mean that the flag state propagates from > >> the settings in IUSE. > > > > Presumably this could be overridden in subsequent profiles, or > > /etc/portage. That is, one profile might set a flag, and another > > profile could unset it, and then the final one could re-set it. > > > >> It's also conceivable that we could add a way for > >> profiles to modify the effective IUSE defaults, via new operators in > >> package.use or by introducing a new file such as package.use.default. > > > > That makes sense, or the syntax could be available in the ebuild. I > > imagine the better approach to take would depend on the nature of the > > incompatibility. > > This is getting a little scary as to what is overriding what, within a > repo.
I also tried to untangle this in my email from Sat, 21 Jul 2018 14:45:12 +0000
It indeed is a bit confusing, but I think you got it right in your list below:
> Lets take a look at what we -can- do right now:
>
> (a) use flag can be set globally by the repo
> (b) ebuild IUSE can set (and unset?) a flag's state
> (c) make.defaults and package.use from the profile (that generally is
> defined within the gentoo repo) sets/unsets a flag's state
> (d) make.conf sets/unsets a flag's state
> (e) /etc/portage/package.use sets/unsets a flag's state
> (f) {,package.}use.{mask,force} from the profile overrides a-e
> (g) /etc/portage/profile/{,package.}use.{mask,force} overrides f
>
> That's a lot of possible state overriding.
I, too, would hope that at some point later, independently of this discussion,
the algorithm for determining what use flags are active for a certain package
could be simplified.
--Dennis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
