[gentoo-portage-dev] USE_EXPAND in profiles?

[gentoo-portage-dev] USE_EXPAND in profiles?

[Joakim Tjernlund]

Under /etc/portage/package.use one can add:
  sys-libs/ntdb PYTHON_TARGETS: python2_7
  net-fs/samba  PYTHON_TARGETS: python2_7

But when I try to transfer this to our custom profile I get
--- Invalid USE flag for 'sys-libs/ntdb' in '/var/lib/layman/transmode/profiles/gentoo64-common/package.use': 'PYTHON_TARGETS:'
--- Invalid USE flag for 'net-fs/samba' in '/var/lib/layman/transmode/profiles/gentoo64-common/package.use': 'PYTHON_TARGETS:'

I am missing something? 
Generally I think that everything possible to do under /etc/portage should be
doable under a profile as well.

    Jocke

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] USE_EXPAND in profiles?

[Kent Fredric]

On 31 March 2016 at 01:49, Joakim Tjernlund
<Joakim.Tjernlund@infinera.com> wrote:
> I am missing something?
> Generally I think that everything possible to do under /etc/portage should be
> doable under a profile as well.


Just double checking, which version of portage do you have?

2.2.8-r2 is still available in stable tree, but you need at least
2.2.16 to get USE_EXPAND (
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/log/?h=v2.2.16 )

So ruling that out first would be advised.

-- 
Kent

KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] USE_EXPAND in profiles?

[Kent Fredric]

On 31 March 2016 at 02:21, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@gmail.com> wrote:
> So ruling that out first would be advised.


NVM, self--  # I'm too tired to be reading and missed the profile
stuff while attempting to be helpful and just was dumb instead.

-- 
Kent

KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] USE_EXPAND in profiles?

[Kent Fredric]

On 31 March 2016 at 01:49, Joakim Tjernlund
<Joakim.Tjernlund@infinera.com> wrote:
>
> I am missing something?
> Generally I think that everything possible to do under /etc/portage should be
> doable under a profile as well.


So after you ignore my other stuff:  Profiles are part of the PMS
specification, so any changes that go in there have to be EAPI
scheduled and cried over for a bit, and probably GLEPs and stuff also.

I guess portage could informally support it prior to any such
specification materialising, but it would have to be forbidden in the
main tree until such a specification was defined, or the portage tree
would become PMS in-compatible.



-- 
Kent

KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] USE_EXPAND in profiles?

[Joakim Tjernlund]

On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 02:26 +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 31 March 2016 at 01:49, Joakim Tjernlund
> <Joakim.Tjernlund@infinera.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I am missing something?
> > Generally I think that everything possible to do under /etc/portage should be
> > doable under a profile as well.
> 
> So after you ignore my other stuff:  Profiles are part of the PMS
> specification, so any changes that go in there have to be EAPI
> scheduled and cried over for a bit, and probably GLEPs and stuff also.
> 
> I guess portage could informally support it prior to any such
> specification materialising, but it would have to be forbidden in the
> main tree until such a specification was defined, or the portage tree
> would become PMS in-compatible.

Yes, exactly! There is no need to use non PMS compatible features in
the gentoo tree.

 Jocke

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] USE_EXPAND in profiles?

[Zac Medico]

On 03/30/2016 07:22 AM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 02:26 +1300, Kent Fredric wrote:
>> On 31 March 2016 at 01:49, Joakim Tjernlund
>> <Joakim.Tjernlund@infinera.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I am missing something?
>>> Generally I think that everything possible to do under /etc/portage should be
>>> doable under a profile as well.
>>
>> So after you ignore my other stuff:  Profiles are part of the PMS
>> specification, so any changes that go in there have to be EAPI
>> scheduled and cried over for a bit, and probably GLEPs and stuff also.
>>
>> I guess portage could informally support it prior to any such
>> specification materialising, but it would have to be forbidden in the
>> main tree until such a specification was defined, or the portage tree
>> would become PMS in-compatible.
> 
> Yes, exactly! There is no need to use non PMS compatible features in
> the gentoo tree.

We hide extensions like this behind profile-formats settings in
metadata/layout.conf. Please file a feature request bug for this at
bugs.gentoo.org.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac