On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:37:25 -0700 Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ryan Hill wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:31:46 -0700 > > Zac Medico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>> Can package.use syntax be extended to allow set entries? > >>> @compiz-fusion -gnome kde kde4 > >> Perhaps, but we need to clarify how that sort of setting will > >> affect nested sets. For example, if @compiz-fusion contains nested > >> sets, would those USE settings apply to the nested sets as well? > >> Will nested sets be allowed to have independent USE settings from > >> the sets that nest them? > > > > Maybe a nested set could inherit the USE flag settings of its > > parent set unless it has its own entry in package.use. > > > > Though what happens if a package is in both sets which have > > conflicting flags in package.use? I would say that the nested set > > has to have priority. If not, I can easily imagine people getting > > confused when their USE settings for a set are being applied to all > > but one or two packages. > > It seems to me that the most logical approach would be to do some > sort of "incremental" stacking, similar to the way that USE flags > stack in the profiles. Suppose that we have the following settings > in package.use: > > @kde-meta foo bar > @kdeedu-meta -foo > > If the flags are stacked incrementally, analogously to the way that > they are stacked in profiles, then the above setting would apply the > "foo" and "bar" flags to all of @kde-meta except for the > @kdeedu-meta subset which would only have "bar" applied since "foo" > has been disabled incrementally. Does this approach seem reasonable? From a lowly users perspective, I would say this is more intuitive. It fits with the expected policy of the closest flag to the package taking precedence... Rob.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
