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 F3D15138247 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:46:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 33328E0A8B; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:45:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35277E09BA for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:45:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com (mail-lb0-f170.google.com [209.85.217.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mattst88) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CCDC633F106 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 21:45:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id z5so3196327lbh.29 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:45:49 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Q5srCyPYWptk/Ba46+JsDLGvHM73h1ykV4No/mkvFN8=; b=doVnQxixO8qZxiX4eWJelC0Fwzq7auQJJMf44E/Agd76QDMA9tV8Jb1B1kFRv1W+6K LI7Anr8oNbKtyBrKbeqL5YqObdUH0PTt1eFYi7hRTiLrINeCtTnb+xhuXnMgGF0w2wTY C1HVK0V//UrhVcGwgo8UGTMs5TFpeha9tFIEtjwTz91N8RPGiQHeoiQpgi0Dbfd2z6wm AGr6tYz8AFCtfkDcuSZsqd5KB0nIyvjMCV2F31r0OhxP6WM4k6tQ74i2WXgtlAm/pWSx ibtXyJTcBnqjGM5g9L9Gbsf5++M9HqOv7RJruLaTog2W+Dx+c2Ik9cDwq/+ALqTuVgoo sQ0w== X-Received: by 10.152.120.194 with SMTP id le2mr223241lab.68.1384551949355; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:45:49 -0800 (PST) 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 Received: by 10.112.61.130 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:45:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20131115223821.463e5b0c@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> References: <20131115210033.4fee8516@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20131115215333.4db15ea8@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20131115223821.463e5b0c@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> From: Matt Turner Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:45:29 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask To: Tom Wijsman Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 44b42b52-e290-47ec-bdc0-b77ddfd04fa9 X-Archives-Hash: 8e3d261114abc38ac57cef21eb329b27 On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:21:53 -0800 > Matt Turner wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Tom Wijsman >> wrote: >> > On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:25:47 -0800 >> > Matt Turner wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Tom Wijsman >> >> wrote: >> >> Imagine I had simply forgotten to unmask the abi_x86_32 USE flag >> >> for kbproto but was attempting to emerge unstable (or unmasked >> >> abi_x86_32) libXt. In fact, if I un-unmask kbproto (so that >> >> abi_x86_32 is masked), unmerge kbproto and attempt to emerge libXt: >> >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> >> emerge: there are no ebuilds built with USE flags to satisfy >> >> "x11-proto/kbproto[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?]". >> >> !!! One of the following packages is required to complete your >> >> request: >> >> - x11-libs/libXt-1.1.4::gentoo (Change USE: -abi_x86_32) >> >> (dependency required by "x11-libs/libXt-1.1.4" [ebuild]) >> >> (dependency required by "libXt" [argument]) >> >> >> >> It suggests that I turn off abi_x86_32 for libXt rather than >> >> telling me to turn the flag on for kbproto! >> > >> > Why should it literally suggest you to do something known to be >> > broken? >> >> I don't know what you mean. kbproto[abi_x86_32] isn't known to be >> broken. You're asking a really weird question based on some implicit >> context that's not available to me. > > A mask implies something is broken (or experimental). Then to answer your previous question: it would suggest it [something broken, according to you] because you've asked for something broken that depends on it! >> I'm claiming in this example that attempting to emerge >> libXt[abi_x86_32], portage should tell you that abi_x86_32 should be >> set for kbproto, rather than telling you to unset abi_x86_32 for libXt >> (which you're requesting to be emerged, damn it!). > > You have to be explicit when you want broken (or experimental) things; > just emerging it isn't enough, taking a step further than that is. I'm explicitly saying that I want libXt with USE=abi_x86_32. Suggesting that I turn it off is kind of ridiculous, don't you think? This seems pretty clear cut. Are you just jerking me around now?