From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j5DKoAw6011323 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:50:11 GMT Received: from smtp1.stealer.net ([82.165.37.24]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1DhvtJ-0000VX-7h for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:50:41 +0000 Received: from sven by smtp1.stealer.net with local id 1DhvtJ-0006rU-L1 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org from sender swegener@gentoo.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:50:41 +0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:50:41 +0200 From: Sven Wegener To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] use.force support Message-ID: <20050613205041.GE4585@lightning.stealer.net> References: <20050613144048.GB4585@lightning.stealer.net> <42ADD039.6000009@gentoo.org> <46059ce10506131256c014866@mail.gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="so9zsI5B81VjUb/o" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46059ce10506131256c014866@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: 5c720519-cc22-4b4b-9383-579aa67efd77 X-Archives-Hash: daedc344667d60893bf973d59ee513ae --so9zsI5B81VjUb/o Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 03:56:49PM -0400, Dan Meltzer wrote: > Seems like use.force might be a bad name..... when I first read the > email, and saw use.force, the first thing that came to mind was > "gentoo forcing something?" and even after reading the email, I > wouldn't expect to be able to override something that was "forced."=20 > I'm not sure what a better name would be, but I think there may be > one... use.force might not be the best name, but it's what we do with it for most of our users. Being able to -flag in /etc/portage/profile/use.force is just because /etc/portage/profile gets added to the cascaded profile chain. Everything we add to portage that allows a profile to revert some behaviour added by parent profiles, can also be done with /etc/portage/profile and it's good that way. So, that we're able to -flag in use.force is just part of the way cascaded profiles work. It's not a feature that will be added just to support use.force. Primary reason for use.force is to have a way to activate flags even if USE=3D"-*" is in make.conf or environment. > also, wouldn't the override be in use.unforce? >_< No, looking at package.mask in profiles for example, package.unmask is a level that comes after package.mask. First we mask packages and then we check if the user want some of them to be unmasked. The actual removing of a mask can be done with -mask'ing the exact mask in package.mask. That's rarely used, but that's the way cascading profile work in portage. May the force be with you, Sven --=20 Sven Wegener Gentoo Linux Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ --so9zsI5B81VjUb/o Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCrfGhAXomK8S72HoRArLDAJ9qoWtVhsiVoP3qaOSqw4uSdZJ/oQCeOE9g k4jaMWez+e0AM6PsYyJQ26Q= =DqcI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --so9zsI5B81VjUb/o-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list