On Friday 07 July 2006 19:43, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:36:00 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | > | > 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...
and i was saying in the namespaced solution you wouldnt need to use.mask things because $ARCH_CPU_FEATURES would be set by users in the make.conf ... if they go setting $WRONGARCH_CPU_FEATURES in make.conf, well i say that's their own fault ;) -mike
pgpDKINTNvZQ3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
