-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Brian Harring wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 12:23:58PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I've written a patch [1] that adds support for package.use.mask in the >> profile. It should behave exactly as use.mask currently does except that it >> allows USE flags to be masked for specific packages rather than for all >> packages. >> >> In previous discussion it's been noted that package.mask + use deps would be >> an alternative way to express this type of masking. However, >> package.use.mask + use deps would have the added ability to mask certain USE >> flags based on other flags that have been selected for a package. Either >> way, the per-package use.mask functionality is certainly needed. Shall we >> go ahead with the package.use.mask implementation or not? >> >> Zac >> >> [1] >> http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/branches/2.1/patches/package.use.mask.patch > > Since you're sliding this in, why not slide it in using use dep > syntax?
I haven't seen a specification for use dependencies yet, so I'm not quite sure how they'd work. > No, not going to fight over this not being in package.mask, what I'm > saying is this _is_ masking of a use dep atom, just use use dep syntax > in the file instead. > > If y'all get use deps, it'll be a bit simpler for folks to support > then the existing crappy format used imo. > Plus, parsing it's easy. > ~harring Is the existing format of of use.mask bad? What about package.use? The implementation that I've proposed is a combination of these two formats that everyone is already familiar with. Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFE06I+/ejvha5XGaMRArmfAJ9TvScSWpx55NLTMghex4EXZv3lZACeJqJV uwUp2/rmg2c8RdXwxUji4EU= =LQd/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
