From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1H1Wj1-0007XN-JY for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 01 Jan 2007 23:37:52 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id l01NavjX015219; Mon, 1 Jan 2007 23:36:57 GMT Received: from ppsw-9.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-9.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.139]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l01NXfnC030431 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2007 23:33:41 GMT X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from cpc4-cmbg1-0-0-cust9.cmbg.cable.ntl.com ([82.21.108.10]:60979 helo=maya) by ppsw-9.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpsa (LOGIN:spb42) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1H1Wev-00037s-UG (Exim 4.63) for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org (return-path ); Mon, 01 Jan 2007 23:33:37 +0000 Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 23:47:50 +0000 From: Stephen Bennett To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: making USE_EXPANDed variables incremental Message-ID: <20070101234750.2198432e@maya> In-Reply-To: <459998EF.3000101@gentoo.org> References: <20070101211247.730788c9@maya> <45997C21.4000001@gentoo.org> <20070101224949.23e52440@maya> <459998EF.3000101@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.6.1 (GTK+ 2.10.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "S.P. Bennett" X-Archives-Salt: f2dcf61a-c5cf-4270-8e27-c893192934d2 X-Archives-Hash: 59e19e642d7ee16704f1425f3b3e620a On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:27:43 -0800 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > I'd rather not make USE_EXPAND incremental if we can't subtract flags. > At present, we accomplish that by simply resetting the whole thing in > subprofiles. But the proposal seems to make impossible any subprofile > of a valid profile that wishes to negate a setting of the parent. I wrote: > > It would mean that all USE_EXPANDed variables get stacked in the > > same way that USE does. The base profile defines a set of defaults, > > which gets flags added to or removed from it in other profiles. The proposal means that all variables listed in USE_EXPAND get handled exactly as USE does where profile inheritance is concerned. Subprofiles can add to and remove from the value in the parent profile just as they can for USE. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list