-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:22:34 -0800 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | In order to do this, selected profile specific flags should be > | masked in the base profile and unmasked/forced in the specific > | profiles which they apply to. The unmasking is necessary because > | use.mask currently overrides use.force. USE flags suggested as > | candidates for masking/forcing include all USE_EXPAND flags derived > | from the USERLAND, KERNEL, and ELIBC variables. > > ...and ARCH, since it seems not all profiles mask all archs... >
Given the current single-inheritance profile structure and the way that many leaf profiles define an ARCH that is different from their parent profile, it will require ARCH masking/forcing in approximately 80 different individual profiles. I'm not sure if it's really worth it. When we start using multiple-inheritance, we can define ARCH specific profiles that those 80 different individual profiles can inherit their ARCH masking/forcing from. Another alternative is to have the package manager do ARCH masking/forcing automatically where appropriate. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to hardcode something like that though. If we want to implement this, one problem with the current profiles is that default-darwin/macos uses ARCH="ppc" and ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="ppc-macos", where both ppc and ppc-macos are currently listed in arch.list. However, this profile is exceptional and it is gradually being phased out of the gentoo-x86 tree as macos users migrate to the prefix branch of portage. Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFF4i0A/ejvha5XGaMRArbbAKChecUUm0T83iDzo7MxW1qEL+Tb9wCgocPO a2SUXF652qY8xGrnLaIBpmo= =NZfE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
