From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 487CB138247 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:42:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A42C0E0B4A; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:42:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qe0-f43.google.com (mail-qe0-f43.google.com [209.85.128.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA0DBE0B2C for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:42:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qe0-f43.google.com with SMTP id gc15so347353qeb.16 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:42:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=FadkavQOmN/SnfYA6P//ksCyP3EelZHoAAyulxIiBZ8=; b=vItTbjajTOdz4OJ9zolAOmjUNTHXxfvsUThkjQfSyM8IYi6artKW1HLKThU2WySOF2 o7HfQL//VzSquRLKVXMN1M2hJwOxgWYiXHrBCviZ8h7LI4tBTBEGTv8hJ/l7lPNO+NXj zjdOzV2hsFsZCmHtrEKtcQ5j8N6mTRrWlJVpOBe8Pv07hs9L+Fuhw7JRRC4rhTtZj2Ng MEK91rK6idvbCsd36Zd/hTH1dY9VvxR06spApkLRXpGm4m6TeDY5Jh1VHqulgspn9FNG PrgrTgWsHDEw+uxz9Y49WCpFFlUJJlAkUUmZiEYGJK510AuIhZ63B0Iz4YRWeLnMGU// bTyg== 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 X-Received: by 10.229.137.135 with SMTP id w7mr1815587qct.14.1384357327891; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:42:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.39.197 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:42:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20131113151012.04145837@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 04:42:07 +1300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask From: Kent Fredric To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 91aa3045-4cd3-4d27-918c-d25f90f0c3a6 X-Archives-Hash: b8588ae568885c156ed8e98c09ac04a8 On 14 November 2013 04:23, Martin Vaeth wrote: > The use.stable.mask "solution" is to not inform the user but just > decide behind his back that he cannot use the flag and enforce > this decision. > Instead, e.g. one can let portage report if some useflag described > in use.stable.mask needs to be disabled, or one can use some > "I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING" name, or whatever. There are many ways > of reporting. But forcing a decision on the user without even > communicating reasonably why this decision was forced is very bad IMHO. Ah, that explains why I hadn't thought I'd seen what this subject was about, because I expected when I saw (-foo) In emerge's overview output, that the flag "foo" was simply hard-masked profile-wide, for "some reason". If there was better indication that these flags are simply masked due to a stability level difference, I'd have expected a different indicator in the output. Seems as this is the reality we have: ebuild: stable, unstable, hardmasked/experimental useflag: stable, hardmasked/experimental Seems logical we make useflags potentially be: useflag: stable, unstable, hardmasked/experimental "Somehow", or at least, if that is already the case, it needs to be more obvious what is occurring, and what steps we should be taking if we want to work around it. Maybe IUSE can be extended in a future EAPI to have ~ , or we could have a seperate variable to indicate useflag stability. ideas: -foo # I don't want foo, but defer if stability differences make that impossible. -~foo # I don't want foo, and I don't care if removing foo reduces stability. -**foo # I don't care if foo is experimental , turn that shit off or something. At very least, emerge --pretend should say something like ((~)-foo) To indicate foo is turned off due to a stability mask, though I don't know how to make it clear to end users what that means. Just showing something different however is often enough to make interested parties curious. -- Kent