From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QZu2y-0001Hx-4k for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:14:56 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C06C81C16C; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:10:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.digimed.co.uk (82-69-83-178.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.69.83.178]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 547EF1C16C for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:10:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from digimed.co.uk (yooden.digimed.co.uk [192.168.1.6]) by mail.digimed.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 614C68047E for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:10:34 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:10:33 +0100 From: Neil Bothwick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE? Message-ID: <20110624011033.09bce3d4@digimed.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <3223478.mY2kb5XGVq@nazgul> References: <2869451.8C6Z2vDv6d@nazgul> <4509993.1vgHhyACcR@nazgul> <20110623230600.0a4b2b7c@digimed.co.uk> <3223478.mY2kb5XGVq@nazgul> Organization: Digital Media Production X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9cvs27 (GTK+ 2.24.5; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-GPG-Fingerprint: 7260 0F33 97EC 2F1E 7667 FE37 BA6E 1A97 4375 1903 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/daP.oQ/BlipF0Pg1GnuGwQg"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 4f96cc55ff5791ed305768e2143058df --Sig_/daP.oQ/BlipF0Pg1GnuGwQg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:31:38 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > Because the behaviour changed to something that is the exact opposite=20 > without any warning. Portage always used to tell what it will do. Now,=20 > simply by leaving the relevant options at the default, it tells me=20 > what it should do. How much more contrary to reasonable expectation=20 > can you get? It's not the exact opposite. Portage is still telling you what it needs, but all in one go, not one problem at a time. > Imagine if tcpwrappers did this. Imagine that hosts.deny was dropped=20 > and hosts.allow retained, also imagine that the desired config file=20 > name becomes hosts.tcpd but it will use hosts.allow if hosts.tcpd is=20 > not found. Now also imagine that the default interpretation of=20 > hosts.tcpd is now default deny, explicit allow. >=20 > All your rules now suddenly invert. Chaos ensues.=20 >=20 > Sure, it's a contrived example, Not only contrived, but irrelevant. Because tcpwrappers actually does something. If your USE flags are unsuitable, portage actually does nothing. All that's changed is how it tells you why it has done nothing. > Few people will argue against the existence of the new unmask options.=20 > Folk who want it can use it. Just don't make it the default in such a=20 > way that it catches old time users by surprise. I must admit, although I read about the new option, probably in an elog message, I was surprised the first time it kicked in when I hadn't turned it on. Although it was not a bad surprised and I then recalled that the message had explained that this was now the default behaviour. One of the unwritten rules of Gentoo is that if you don't read elog messages, you can expect to get burned. --=20 Neil Bothwick What do you do when you see an endangered animal eating an endangered plant? --Sig_/daP.oQ/BlipF0Pg1GnuGwQg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk4D1fkACgkQum4al0N1GQMORACeNXMQME4hh37rgwMdnOLaQmLo O9oAoKZ8qVQL8FzjKtrit9whDxJNo82q =jmmG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/daP.oQ/BlipF0Pg1GnuGwQg--