On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:36:00 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > | > It'd also make handling use masking much easier. | > | | > | why ? because there wouldnt be anything to mask ? | > | > I'm pretty sure that USE_EXPAND has to be the same across all | > profiles, so no, masking would still be required. I'm thinking more | > avoiding the cases where amd64 users set CPU_FEATURES="blah", and | > the fooplayer package only has blah code written for x86 CPUs. | | huh ? in your schema, the variable itself would be name spaced, so | there would be amd64_CPU_FEATURES, x86_CPU_FEATURES, etc..., there | wouldnt be just CPU_FEATURES
My example was demonstrating a problem in the non-namespaced case, not the namespaced solution. Expanding this with an example... Assuming that x86 and amd64 both support foo and bar, and that the baz app supports both on x86 and only foo on amd64: No namespacing: x86 # [ebuild N] app-misc/baz USE="oink" CPU_FEATURES="foo baz" amd64 # [ebuild N] app-misc/baz USE="oink" CPU_FEATURES="foo baz" With namespacing: x86 # [ebuild N] app-misc/baz USE="oink" x86_CPU_FEATURES="foo baz" amd64_CPU_FEATURES="(-foo)" amd64 # [ebuild N] app-misc/baz USE="oink" x86_CPU_FEATURES="(-foo) (-baz)" amd64_CPU_FEATURES="foo" With namespacing, and with USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN set in subprofiles which may well be illegal: x86 # [ebuild N] app-misc/baz USE="oink" x86_CPU_FEATURES="foo baz" amd64 # [ebuild N] app-misc/baz USE="oink" amd64_CPU_FEATURES="foo" The output's a bit longer, but it avoids telling the user that they're getting something that they aren't. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
