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 1KfKYf-0001UU-Tn for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:20:30 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C4698E069B; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:20:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB25E069B for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:20:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.22.10] (ip68-4-152-120.oc.oc.cox.net [68.4.152.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F946B4ABC for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:20:27 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <48CEC387.9000200@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:20:23 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080707) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Preventing $ARCH flags in USE References: <48CEBB5B.8020507@gentoo.org> <3c32af40809151301k4d38e79eu68df25a26917613f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3c32af40809151301k4d38e79eu68df25a26917613f@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 3b228fdc-7669-4c0c-adbe-9c08ebd122d1 X-Archives-Hash: 5851178ed8d57fa66892d905779ca410 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Santiago M. Mola wrote: > 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. While I don't necessarily disagree with you, my impression is that most people tend to think that certain profile-specific flags such as userland_* and kernel_* should be considered as implicit members of IUSE and therefore they shouldn't be explicitly listed in in IUSE. - -- Thanks, Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkjOw4YACgkQ/ejvha5XGaMILACfSQeRT7y1RzwTWWRnHvXBqFCh 9Q0An2AQZ9jJXLSWD1sKfL6+RdVNgEjl =Vh+a -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----