From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KfKFz-0008G4-EE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:01:11 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B8610E0870; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:01:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gx0-f19.google.com (mail-gx0-f19.google.com [209.85.217.19]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A363E0870 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:01:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gxk12 with SMTP id 12so24670718gxk.10 for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:01:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=UnZngYgRsIzehElyqQyEjn/Mg7LZR96DtsNMOmGBTgA=; b=wsB/lfbFkPbpadUES4FbID7qGF7PY1NLIuClSQ0za0oDMjOTs9Bdy65NjGOrMMyxkK oNDqDJsqbTe8XUacY/LXjhprXRc8PpoaU9P/e2DP+ag+W58vtFdGreWVqrTAo1524X2E zHV/hCc0Y4RMMhx9O+6hT1WJ8JGQIdZKxpEp0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=H0YLY+d7+T36WaLH1JSkq5k0G+9zonEZy/ExYvXlYbGJ5wgHa9jDNiQ5UUR48HHYYV ACyPdIvMSxS9AUSS/Eev15aSA49mdIGbfpP9N44xthwIrs1WWVwuF3ReLlLpP2PIIMl9 l7RuOHpRlkYLlPEVdbcVJCckdV/ZqzOu5vhKg= Received: by 10.90.53.1 with SMTP id b1mr268913aga.34.1221508869497; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:01:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.49.6 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:01:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3c32af40809151301k4d38e79eu68df25a26917613f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:01:09 +0200 From: "Santiago M. Mola" Sender: cooldwind@gmail.com To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Preventing $ARCH flags in USE In-Reply-To: <48CEBB5B.8020507@gentoo.org> 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: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <48CEBB5B.8020507@gentoo.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: cd8e957ea215d2e9 X-Archives-Salt: 093ae9e6-6f5f-4be6-925f-629aee3360a6 X-Archives-Hash: 21ce3f1564936f836eab96c789c1d1a4 On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > I think it's better to prevent this rather than waste time with bug > reports like that. I asked Zac on IRC whether portage could filter such > flags. He suggested using use.mask in profiles. Well since ARCH is also > set by a profile, why not. Although a really persistent and stupid user > could use.unmask, it's better than no protection. And then we can think > how to replace the current ARCH->USE flag system with e.g. USE_EXPAND. > What do you think? > Seems like an acceptable workaround. For future EAPIs, ARCH could be a regular USE_EXPANDed flag as you suggest, and package managers could filter any flag in USE which is not listed in IUSE. Regards, -- Santiago M. Mola Jabber ID: cooldwind@gmail.com