On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 04:24:27PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 03:39:19 -0700 > Brian Harring <ferri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 1) We disallow '@' in USE flags (yes, a use flag can actually have > > '@' in it's name according to PMS; someone was hitting the crack > > pipe pretty damn hard when they allowed that one). This doesn't > > impact anything in gentoo-x86, nor any tree I've ever seen. > > No crack pipe was involved in that decision! It's because of LINGUAS. > > (Incidentally, we used : rather than @ for separation for exheres-0 for > that reason.)
Who says Linguas definition didn't involve a bit 'o crack? ;) On that subject, not entirely sure how the hell a grepp'ing of profiles on my part missed that file; worse, I distinctly recall this coming up in the past. Suspect it's time we add a footnote to that section of names since it's non-obvious. Sigh... Two angles; 1) Mind you, the woken up/caffeine ratio currently blows so this could be quite off kilter- but at first glance the '@' linguas usage actually seems to map to sub use groups (both in intent and grouping), at least for the quick scan I did of what we use. Might not actually be an issue, iow if we allow that, although that's assuming the '@' subgroup approach translates reasonably cleanly. The potential failure I'd see with that approach is it's a bit reliant on the assumption that the rules: `language[_territory[.codeset]][@modifier]` have been abided by- that the modifier is just that, a modifier. Were we to do this, which, at least at first sight, seems like a nifty solution that addresses it, we'd *likely* want sub groups to have a rule such that if you try to expand the subgroup of a setting, and that setting isn't a subgroup, it is considered 'on'. Basically, for the linguas case, it kind of sucks if we get into the situation where the consuming ebuilds/eclasses has to be sensitive to which modifiers were exposed. Essentially: linguas@de_DE@, if not a subgroup to expand to, is treated as scalar, rather than list. Impliciations of that I've not yet fully thought out- note that tweak isn't necessary for the basic notion of #1 to be usable also. 2) bikeshedding potentials: just spitballing a couple of potentials if '@' subgroups there doesn't fly for folks reading (mean it nicely, we shouldn't diverge arbitarily, but in the same instant we shouldn't import syntax/notions from exherbo unless they explicitly make sense in the gentoo/PMS context; the formats diverge enough the "reuse for compatibility" argument doesn't hold much water): ruby_targets@ruby_18 ruby_targets:ruby_18 ruby_targets|ruby_18 ruby_targets(ruby_18) Potentially fun thought, although the syntax is kind of ugly; basically we treat 'ruby_target' as a matching target (restriction in pkgcore vernacular, something that matches something else); the nice thing about this is it naturally plugins into the notion of multiple settings: ruby_targets[ruby18] ruby_targets[ruby18,ruby19] In the same angle, while it's partially valid bash (and not in the single setting case): ruby_targets{ruby_18} ruby_targets{ruby_18,ruby_19} That said, I consider the [] and {} syntax absolutely freaking ugly to the eye. I mention it should others think it's not butt-fugly. If approach #1 doesn't fly, using ':' as the delimiter gets my vote. ~harring