From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RUOWi-0000MR-VU for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:07:09 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B990721C102; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:06:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6056421C0BD for ; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:06:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.26.5] (ip98-164-193-252.oc.oc.cox.net [98.164.193.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C33ED1B401C for ; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 20:06:22 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4ED146BD.6080507@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:06:21 -0800 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111120 Thunderbird/8.0 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] RFC: Gentoo News file about GNOME 3.2's unmasking References: <1322331681.12339.11.camel@daedalus.lan> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: ccfc3dd1-5514-44be-a7ba-387b74d5e095 X-Archives-Hash: 37d02ce7ed09de2b031a9f1101b59de2 On 11/26/2011 10:55 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Mart Raudsepp wrote: >> On L, 2011-11-26 at 12:43 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: >>> A question: it currently restricts only on the basis of If-Installed, >>> but is there a workaround for the absence Display-If-Visible filter? >>> If there isn't, I'll commit it as-is. >> >> I think it'd be bad to get the news item out like that now for stable >> users, and then after a long time once we stabilize it (if ever), it's >> been long forgotten and marked away as read. Maybe the keyword checks >> should be re-added for now and edited away later if necessary (before >> stabling)? >> > > I actually removed that keyword thing because I wasn't sure if it > worked with ~arch specifiers. I think it's easier to just bump the > news file version when we stabilize 3.2 so that people see it again. > Presuming that that will work. GLEP 42 refers to GLEP 22, which says nothing of ~arch specifiers. The current portage code literally compares the news item's keyword to the current profile's ARCH variable, so ~arch specifiers will not match. The code is in the DisplayKeywordRestriction class: http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=blob;f=pym/portage/news.py#l326 -- Thanks, Zac