On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 02:51:53 +0000 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zac Medico wrote: > > Ryan Hill wrote: > >> 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? > This sounds a good approach. > > Ryan, I disagree with your proposal. If I enable a use flag for the > "meta" @kde and also disable it for @kdenetwork, I don't expect my > option for the @kde "meta" to override my option for @kdenetwork. > As Zac proposed, an incremental stack makes more sense. Before we had > sets, when we enabled a use flag for a meta and disabled it for an > ebuild pulled by the meta, we never expected the option for the ebuild > to be overridden by the option for the meta. Yes, that's what I said. ;) The nested set's flags (@kde-network) override the parent set's flags (@kde). -- gcc-porting, by design, by neglect treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
