From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEEBC138247 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:09:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 753D6E094F; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:09:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from foo.stuge.se (foo.stuge.se [212.116.89.98]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3741CE08DC for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:09:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 7386 invoked by uid 501); 15 Nov 2013 21:09:04 -0000 Message-ID: <20131115210904.7385.qmail@stuge.se> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:09:04 +0100 From: Peter Stuge To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20131115210033.4fee8516@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20131115215333.4db15ea8@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.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="61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131115215333.4db15ea8@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> X-Archives-Salt: 88a69c94-c882-4f11-9781-83ada6307d8e X-Archives-Hash: 806923b1843dc9f46e3c682dad2181dd --61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Tom Wijsman wrote: > Does replacing this "explicit behavior" by "implicit behavior" make > sense for the users in general? Please don't warp the words. Maybe I misunderstand, but it seems like that's what you're doing. I'll try to clarify: With explicit I was refering to allowing manual setting and unsetting of USE flags, keywords and masks. With implicit I was refering to those same things happening automatically. USE flags set or unset automatically, keywords set or unset automatically, masks set or unset automatically - as a result of something or other. Any such automations significantly diminish the value of the explicit knobs and are counter-intuitive. If someone is given a mechanism to control which USE flags are set or unset then it's just stupid to go "around" those settings. I understand the temptation to make things happen automatically for ease of development, and that is perfectly fine as long as those automations aren't exposed to users. //Peter --61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFSho1whR3Q0dhIfEgRAvtyAKCWH9ruemweQiR1BYSwjZAPpMAioQCeNQkK CeyFfdkhItccnt8vfv6PwUA= =3CNO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/--