From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14245139694 for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 07:47:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0F688E0EA6; Tue, 30 May 2017 07:47:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE864E0DFE for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 07:47:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e34:eeaa:6bd0:4ecc:6aff:fe03:1cfc]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3788234174A for ; Tue, 30 May 2017 07:47:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 09:47:19 +0200 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Forced/automatic USE flag constraints (codename: ENFORCED_USE) Message-ID: <20170530094719.16e922f6@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <22828.39468.127754.336255@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <1496071993.31087.1.camel@gentoo.org> <20170529200037.2559f80a@gentoo.org> <1496093035.12795.3.camel@gentoo.org> <22828.39468.127754.336255@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.0-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 7fbeccf8-567a-4fd3-a915-a3e8cba6e23d X-Archives-Hash: fca9601911a0bf14251a7cc2ac5090f6 On Tue, 30 May 2017 00:01:16 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, 29 May 2017, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: =20 > Also, can we find a better name? Sorry for the bikeshedding at this > early stage, but I believe that ENFORCED_USE can be easily confused > with use.force in profiles. MAPPED_USE? USE_MAP? Why do we even need a new name ?