[gentoo-dev] Re: Please consider removing use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.mask

[Martin Vaeth <vaeth@mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de>]

Kent Fredric <kentfredric@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe IUSE can be extended in a future EAPI to have ~

I like this "~foo" idea very much from the user's point of view:
You see clearly why useflags are disabled, and one could have a
"simple" mechanism to override it.

However, extending IUSE is not the correct way, because
you would need a matrix in every ebuild which cannot be
reasonably maintained: Every useflag can be masked or stable on
each architecture differently. So, supporting the currently
existing {package,}.use.mask in the profiles might make sense,
just the effect needs to be modified somewhat.

1. A tiny change in the display: ~foo instead of (-foo)
2. A more severe change in the way how to unmask it:

(a) ACCEPT_KEYWORD=~ARCH can unmask it (as currenttly).

(b) /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords does *not* unmask it
    (contrary to now); this would avoid the dependency hell.
    Instead:

(c1) The entry ~foo in /etc/portage/package.use unkeywords foo.
     Alternatively (or in addition):

(c2) The entry foo in /etc/portage/package.use.accept_keywords
     unmasks it; this could be even extended with architectures
     and '**' as the current accept_keywords.

(d) Of course, changing the profile (like overriding it in
    /etc/portage/profile) can unmask it, too (as currently),
    but this should not be encouraged.

If I see it correctly, this would not even require an EAPI bump,
since /etc/portage/package.* files are not subject to pms.

I hope that (b) is not hard to implement in portage, since
it means that portage has to keep track about the cause of
an unkeywording.