Sven Wegener wrote: > I like to have them separate. USE and use.mask are incremental, that > means we might lock (via use.mask) a flag that is not set by the profile > the use.mask is in. This might result in unwanted locking. Considering > we want to use.mask (as in the old meaning, forcing it to be off) > ncurses in the current profile, then we also need to USE="-ncurses" in > the profile to make sure the flag is off and not activated by another > profile. This needs to be done for all flags that should be use.mask'ed > and that are, depending on the profile, quite a lot. Means double > management work. Other solution is to modify portage to evaluate every > use.mask and USE on a per profile level. But that's somehow against the > cascading aspect of the profiles.
Yeah, I didn't think of that. Good point. >>Question: with use.force, what happens if a flag is both masked and >>forced? Does it get turned on, get turned off, or get portage to >>complain and abort? > > > Good question. I would prefer to turn the flag off and make portage > print a message. Sounds good enough to me. Just make sure it doesn't get printed for every package if something gets broken after emerge sync :) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
