>>>>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 12/08/15 11:55 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: >> I think it is better seen as a list of implications, esp. for >> this kind of questions :) With that in mind, there is no >> autounmask-write: effective USE for a given package is input USE >> with these implications applied.
This very well summarises it. > ..if I'm understanding what you're saying here, you see this as > something the PM will use to adjust the input use list so that the > emerge itself will go ahead with the newly adjusted flags; am I > understanding that correctly? > In other words, there won't be any user control/alert/override for > what the default actions will be, if the user's profile isn't set up > in a way that satisfies REQUIRED_USE, correct? so if I have > 'app-cat/pkg qt4' in my package.use, but USE="qt5" in my profile, > then because both flags end up being enabled the REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( > +qt5 qt4 )" in app-cat/pkg will just force-off my package.use entry > and everything will proceed as if it wasn't there? Indeed, maybe there would be too much magic at work there. However, note that also currently you won't be able to emerge the package with a package.use that results in conflicting flags. Ulrich
pgp02Zm3PApGy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
