Re: usemove [was Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: changing ssl use flag descriptions and unify behaviour]

["Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1504 bytes --]

On 03/28/2010 09:27 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 01:03:43AM -0500, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> I seriously hate changing USE flags for the sake of changing use
>> flags. This provides a moderate amount of annoyance for anyone that
>> maintains more then one Gentoo box because they need to then tinker
>> with their /etc/make.conf and /etc/portage/package.use to get
>> everything right again. And oh no what if the one box is on ~arch and
>> one isn't and what if one is x86 and one isn't. Its just such a
>> configuration nightmare.
>>
>> So unless there's any real benefit, I'm against this.
> 
> I'm not arguing for arbitrary changes, but if the change makes sense 
> and isn't trivial it should be done.
> 
> What is needed is to tweak the tools for such a move- specifically 
> adding a new command to the update machinery (profiles/updates).  
> Something roughly like
> 
> usemove [atom] original_flag new_flag
> 
> If an atom is specified, the move applies only to w/in that pkg; if no 
> atom, it's a global shift in the configuration (meaning all ebuilds 
> now use gtk instead of gtk2 for example).
> 

Filed Future EAPI request:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=311731

> 
> USE_EXPAND, roughly- I wouldn't say it's fully there, but it certainly 
> would be where I'd start for any proposal...
> 

A good point. So how about renaming gnutls openssl and nss to
ssl_implementation_* to make the usage clear?

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]