On 01/10/2017 11:30 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Zac Medico wrote: > >> On 01/10/2017 01:56 PM, Bernard Cafarelli wrote: >>> But repoman replied with a batch of dependency.bad errors... >>> Does package.use.mask (stable and ~arch) have a higher priority on >>> package.use.stable.mask (stable only)? Bug or intended behavior? > >> If I understand you correctly, then it's the intended behavior. If the >> flag is masked in both package.use.mask and package.use.stable.mask, >> then the package.use.stable.mask setting is irrelevant because both >> package.use.mask and package.use.stable.mask are considered when >> calculating use.mask settings for any given package. > > I believe this is not correct. package.use.stable.mask should take > precedence within the same profile: > https://projects.gentoo.org/pms/6/pms.html#x1-58002r1
Oh, right. I misunderstood because I misread the original email. I should have looked at the profile state to avoid a misunderstanding: profiles/arch/amd64/package.use.mask:gnustep-base/gnustep-make -libobjc2 profiles/arch/x86/package.use.mask:gnustep-base/gnustep-make -libobjc2 profiles/base/package.use.mask:>=gnustep-base/gnustep-make-2.6.2 libobjc2 I've checked the portage code and package.use.stable.mask does in fact take precedence within the same profile, because the UseManager getUseForce method uses an algorithm equivalent to the one specified in pms. -- Thanks, Zac
