Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] mask and force various profile specific USE flags
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:22:34 -0800 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | In order to do this, selected profile specific flags should be | masked in the base profile and unmasked/forced in the specific | profiles which they apply to. The unmasking is necessary because | use.mask currently overrides use.force. USE flags suggested as | candidates for masking/forcing include all USE_EXPAND flags derived | from the USERLAND, KERNEL, and ELIBC variables. ...and ARCH, since it seems not all profiles mask all archs... Given the current single-inheritance profile structure and the way that many leaf profiles define an ARCH that is different from their parent profile, it will require ARCH masking/forcing in approximately 80 different individual profiles. I'm not sure if it's really worth it. When we start using multiple-inheritance, we can define ARCH specific profiles that those 80 different individual profiles can inherit their ARCH masking/forcing from. Another alternative is to have the package manager do ARCH masking/forcing automatically where appropriate. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to hardcode something like that though. If we want to implement this, one problem with the current profiles is that default-darwin/macos uses ARCH=ppc and ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=ppc-macos, where both ppc and ppc-macos are currently listed in arch.list. However, this profile is exceptional and it is gradually being phased out of the gentoo-x86 tree as macos users migrate to the prefix branch of portage. Zac -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFF4i0A/ejvha5XGaMRArbbAKChecUUm0T83iDzo7MxW1qEL+Tb9wCgocPO a2SUXF652qY8xGrnLaIBpmo= =NZfE -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] mask and force various profile specific USE flags
On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 16:42 -0800, Zac Medico wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:22:34 -0800 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | In order to do this, selected profile specific flags should be | masked in the base profile and unmasked/forced in the specific | profiles which they apply to. The unmasking is necessary because | use.mask currently overrides use.force. USE flags suggested as | candidates for masking/forcing include all USE_EXPAND flags derived | from the USERLAND, KERNEL, and ELIBC variables. ...and ARCH, since it seems not all profiles mask all archs... Given the current single-inheritance profile structure and the way that many leaf profiles define an ARCH that is different from their parent profile, it will require ARCH masking/forcing in approximately 80 different individual profiles. I'm not sure if it's really worth it. When we start using multiple-inheritance, we can define ARCH specific profiles that those 80 different individual profiles can inherit their ARCH masking/forcing from. We're (Release Engineering) trying to use them now. Since I took the 2007.0 snapshot, I have been working on replacing all of the 2007.0 profiles into a multi-parent version of said profiles. This includes all of the required parents, such as base/default-linux/etc. While we aren't planning on requiring using them for this release, I'm trying to get them done and will be building some experimental stages based on them. Depending on how easy it ends up being, we might just use them for the release itself. They should be quite simple, at least for default-linux and its children. I'm putting in everything that is currently in the tree into my multi-parent profile group. Since I don't have to make any changes to the current profiles, it can live side-by-side in the tree with no adverse consequences, other than people having make certain commits in two places until we phase out the old profiles. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] mask and force various profile specific USE flags
On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 15:22 -0800, Zac Medico wrote: We can make this change to the profiles immediately because use.mask support has been available for a long time, and use.force is simply ignored by older versions of portage. Thoughts? If this is done, will anyone who makes such changes to their profiles shoot me a .diff for it? I'd like to include this in the release snapshot so it's already done on new installs. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] mask and force various profile specific USE flags
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:22:34 -0800 Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | In order to do this, selected profile specific flags should be | masked in the base profile and unmasked/forced in the specific | profiles which they apply to. The unmasking is necessary because | use.mask currently overrides use.force. USE flags suggested as | candidates for masking/forcing include all USE_EXPAND flags derived | from the USERLAND, KERNEL, and ELIBC variables. ...and ARCH, since it seems not all profiles mask all archs... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] [RFC] mask and force various profile specific USE flags
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi everyone, If we mask and force various profile specific USE flags appropriately, it will give repoman the information it needs to stop producing bogus warnings about unsatisfied conditional dependencies that are actually irrelevant. An additional benefit is that emerge - --newuse will ignore the addition or removal of these flags from IUSE (since masked/forced flags do not represent choices for the user). In order to do this, selected profile specific flags should be masked in the base profile and unmasked/forced in the specific profiles which they apply to. The unmasking is necessary because use.mask currently overrides use.force. USE flags suggested as candidates for masking/forcing include all USE_EXPAND flags derived from the USERLAND, KERNEL, and ELIBC variables. We can make this change to the profiles immediately because use.mask support has been available for a long time, and use.force is simply ignored by older versions of portage. Thoughts? Zac -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFF1445/ejvha5XGaMRAqr1AKDy0M1EUbrQWsWD+iMRKIUhtvyteQCfUt14 qXAgR8+pR/y5mtu5EUm5U10= =geAX -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
