Holly Bostick wrote: >glen martin schreef: > > >>As an aside, I wonder whether it is a good feature idea that >>ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="<keyword>" emerge <foo> without --oneshot should >>automatically add <foo> <keyword> to the package.keywords file. >> >> >That's an idea with some merit, but imo not enough (merit) to make it >feasible (but it's not my decision; submit a feature request and see >what happens). > >You now know firsthand one of the many reasons that using >ACCEPT_KEYWORDS on the command line is *not* recommended. > >It is a temporary setting, useful only for testing situations. > That makes sense. I hadn't encountered that recommendation at the time - I'd seen the ACCEPT_KEYWORDS syntax without such warning. Not in the man page, obviously, which has it right.
> The idea of having the temporary setting invisibly add a permanent > setting seems cool, The trick here is the word 'temporary'. If 'temporary', the keyword --oneshot would (should?) be present. In absence thereof ... It seems analogous to the world file - the world file is the permanent specification, and it written per presence or absence of oneshot. Why not so for /etc/portage/package.*? How are those files different-in-kind from world? I don't know. I am far from an expert at the design philosophy behind these tools. I just note that there seem to be failures of consistency in application (or not) of a flag across different situations. Permanence for one setting is accomplished with a flag (well, absence), permanence for another requires a file change and the flag is ignored. Or there's a failure in my understanding, which I've found to be very well served by saying the wrong things and waiting for stones. > So it's not something for me, but I'm weird ;-) I am too. Without the smiley. Or so is frequently said. glen -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
