Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting: Tuesday 14 August 2012, 19:00 UTC

[Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 02:12:40PM +0100, David Leverton wrote:
> On 14 August 2012 23:20, Micha?? G??rny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:02:04 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> There's still the issue that we haven't decided what [use] deps do
> >> when they show up in profile files. We were sticking at 1 until we
> >> worked that out.
> >
> > Ah, about that. It will be useful if [use] deps in package.mask worked
> > unlike in package.use.mask, thus giving us a tool to temporarily mask
> > packages which are broken only with given flags.
> 
> Do we have a verdict on this?  What Micha?? suggests for package.mask
> sounds OK to me, but use deps in package.use, package.use.mask, etc
> could be rather nastier, and I'd be inclined to ban those unless
> someone has a better idea.

Use deps in all *.mask are already banned; whether by spec or 
convention- when they were added the potential was known, and stated 
as "don't do that".

If we're going to try doing it now, analysis needs to be done to see 
what fallout there is *before trying to change the fucking thing*.

Offhand, I'd strongly bet no PM will handle a use dep atom in 
package.mask now; as for *.use.* abuse of use deps, that's frankly 
worse- it's chained deps, "if this use configuration, mask that flag".  
That's hell on wheels for the PM to implement.

Personally, I'd like to see 'dev-util/diffball[debug]' usable in 
package.use.mask (instead of dev-util/diffball debug), but it's not a 
backwards compatible change w/ existing PMs.

Either way, the verdict is "can't go anywhere till compatibility is 
figured out" :P

~harring