* [gentoo-dev] Preventing $ARCH flags in USE
@ 2008-09-15 19:45 Vlastimil Babka
2008-09-15 20:01 ` Santiago M. Mola
2008-09-17 16:19 ` Zac Medico
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2008-09-15 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 696 bytes --]
Apparently, setting USE=x86 in make.conf on amd64 arch can have funny
consequences such as [1]. And I can imagine even more subtle and hard to
detect errors due to this.
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?
Vlastimil
[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236801
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Preventing $ARCH flags in USE
2008-09-15 19:45 [gentoo-dev] Preventing $ARCH flags in USE Vlastimil Babka
@ 2008-09-15 20:01 ` Santiago M. Mola
2008-09-15 20:20 ` Zac Medico
2008-09-17 15:07 ` Zac Medico
2008-09-17 16:19 ` Zac Medico
1 sibling, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Santiago M. Mola @ 2008-09-15 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Vlastimil Babka <caster@gentoo.org> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Preventing $ARCH flags in USE
2008-09-15 20:01 ` Santiago M. Mola
@ 2008-09-15 20:20 ` Zac Medico
2008-09-16 6:01 ` Fabian Groffen
2008-09-17 15:07 ` Zac Medico
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Zac Medico @ 2008-09-15 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Vlastimil Babka <caster@gentoo.org> 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-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Preventing $ARCH flags in USE
2008-09-15 20:20 ` Zac Medico
@ 2008-09-16 6:01 ` Fabian Groffen
2008-09-16 6:05 ` Ciaran McCreesh
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Fabian Groffen @ 2008-09-16 6:01 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On 15-09-2008 13:20:23 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> > 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.
Yes, IMO mainly because they should never explicitly be set by users, so
they shouldn't get a hint they can set it either.
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Preventing $ARCH flags in USE
2008-09-16 6:01 ` Fabian Groffen
@ 2008-09-16 6:05 ` Ciaran McCreesh
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Ciaran McCreesh @ 2008-09-16 6:05 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 576 bytes --]
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:01:46 +0200
Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Yes, IMO mainly because they should never explicitly be set by users,
> so they shouldn't get a hint they can set it either.
That's covered by USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Preventing $ARCH flags in USE
2008-09-15 20:01 ` Santiago M. Mola
2008-09-15 20:20 ` Zac Medico
@ 2008-09-17 15:07 ` Zac Medico
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Zac Medico @ 2008-09-17 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Vlastimil Babka <caster@gentoo.org> 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.
I suspect that it may be a little more than a "workaround". Consider
a case where IUSE contains elibc_glibc and the current selected
profile has set ELIBC=uclibc. In this case, the user could
conceivable set USE=elibc_glibc in make.conf, which would clearly be
an invalid setting. Therefore, it seems natural to mask the
elibc_glibc USE flag on all profiles except those which actually use
glibc.
- --
Thanks,
Zac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkjRHTQACgkQ/ejvha5XGaPsBwCfQ1tv/AgKH4x0PS++QtbFeav0
3NAAoJbvO3FHjt3uGL/kffOxRh7/akZq
=Ez2M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Preventing $ARCH flags in USE
2008-09-15 19:45 [gentoo-dev] Preventing $ARCH flags in USE Vlastimil Babka
2008-09-15 20:01 ` Santiago M. Mola
@ 2008-09-17 16:19 ` Zac Medico
2008-09-28 16:19 ` Donnie Berkholz
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Zac Medico @ 2008-09-17 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Apparently, setting USE=x86 in make.conf on amd64 arch can have funny
> consequences such as [1]. And I can imagine even more subtle and hard to
> detect errors due to this.
>
> 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?
>
> Vlastimil
>
> [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236801
>
I suggest that we unmask the appropriate ARCH flags in
profiles/arch/*/use.mask, add ../base to profiles/arch/*/parent, and
create profiles/arch/base/use.mask to mask all of the existing ARCH
flags. This will serve to mask all but the appropriate ARCH flags
for all of the 2008.0 profiles. Does this seem reasonable?
- --
Thanks,
Zac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkjRLiMACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOUnACfb+wsK5BbVdNgmuG/KShxDPXy
hUUAn2a4hwO+4euOmExozx+7MegJZLK7
=9/4W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Preventing $ARCH flags in USE
2008-09-17 16:19 ` Zac Medico
@ 2008-09-28 16:19 ` Donnie Berkholz
2008-09-28 16:32 ` Zac Medico
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Donnie Berkholz @ 2008-09-28 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 550 bytes --]
On 09:19 Wed 17 Sep , Zac Medico wrote:
> I suggest that we unmask the appropriate ARCH flags in
> profiles/arch/*/use.mask, add ../base to profiles/arch/*/parent, and
> create profiles/arch/base/use.mask to mask all of the existing ARCH
> flags. This will serve to mask all but the appropriate ARCH flags
> for all of the 2008.0 profiles. Does this seem reasonable?
Yes, and don't the arch profiles already have base as a parent?
--
Thanks,
Donnie
Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Preventing $ARCH flags in USE
2008-09-28 16:19 ` Donnie Berkholz
@ 2008-09-28 16:32 ` Zac Medico
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Zac Medico @ 2008-09-28 16:32 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 09:19 Wed 17 Sep , Zac Medico wrote:
>> I suggest that we unmask the appropriate ARCH flags in
>> profiles/arch/*/use.mask, add ../base to profiles/arch/*/parent, and
>> create profiles/arch/base/use.mask to mask all of the existing ARCH
>> flags. This will serve to mask all but the appropriate ARCH flags
>> for all of the 2008.0 profiles. Does this seem reasonable?
>
> Yes, and don't the arch profiles already have base as a parent?
>
They do now because I've already implemented the above suggestion. ;)
- --
Thanks,
Zac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkjfsbIACgkQ/ejvha5XGaPhDgCfYltLRE/yAJYB09mugh2oTsvf
1BkAnjkvYlR2ohrjm5tnb8SbLxcDsgip
=6kIP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-09-28 16:33 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-09-15 19:45 [gentoo-dev] Preventing $ARCH flags in USE Vlastimil Babka
2008-09-15 20:01 ` Santiago M. Mola
2008-09-15 20:20 ` Zac Medico
2008-09-16 6:01 ` Fabian Groffen
2008-09-16 6:05 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2008-09-17 15:07 ` Zac Medico
2008-09-17 16:19 ` Zac Medico
2008-09-28 16:19 ` Donnie Berkholz
2008-09-28 16:32 ` Zac Medico
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox