On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 17:49 +0300, Marius Mauch wrote:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
> > Marius Mauch wrote:
> >
> > Gentoo being about choice the new package.use should come before
> > anything user set. I do not see any problem with this if it works in the
> > same way as package.mask already works. Please, enlighten me.
>
> Because package.use is implemented in a very different way then
> package.mask and currently isn't stackable at all. Adding a
> profiles/package.use that could be overridden by make.conf would require
> some nasty special casing in portage, and as we all know special case
> code is something that should be avoided. Besides that, there would also
> be the question about USE=-*, should this kill profiles/package.use
> completely?
> Short version: Implementation and semantics of profiles/package.use
> isn't much easier than extending IUSE.
>
> Marius
Hijacking this for a moment. And I fully expect to be lynched for the
following but it is something that has come up in both the amd64 and
ppc64 groups in the past.
I know it has been proposed many a time in the past but a per profile
(${PORTDIR}/profiles/default-linux/${ARCH}) package.use.mask would also
come in handy. It's a rare case...but increasingly in the world of mixed
32-bit and 64-bit environments things like java work against 32-bit
stuff *or* 64-bit stuff. This means that the java use flag will work
perfectly on a given arch for one bitness but not the other...and
masking it out completely means that the one bitness where it would work
looses functionality unnecessarily.
Yeah I know this adds a whole additional layer of complexity to the
picture but seeing how DEPEND="!arch? ( use? ( app-foo/bar ) )" is
against policy there has to be some way to control it.
--
Daniel Ostrow
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
