Bug 311731 – [Future EAPI] Add support for use flag renames to profiles/updates

• Product: Gentoo Hosted Projects
• Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

[Description Petteri Räty (RETIRED) 2010-03-28 11:01:25 UTC]

http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_6d0c9c4226e3b37001e760a8d92a69e7.xml

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

zmedico: What

[Comment 1 Justin Lecher (RETIRED) 2011-04-04 12:07:12 UTC]

Petteri, is that bug in the right category? Don't we just need changes in portage?

[Comment 2 Petteri Räty (RETIRED) 2011-04-04 12:22:24 UTC]

(In reply to comment #1)
> Petteri, is that bug in the right category? Don't we just need changes in
> portage?

I don't see why this would be Portage specific. Developers need to be modifying files covered by PMS.

[Comment 3 Justin Lecher (RETIRED) 2011-04-04 12:27:57 UTC]

No, that wasn't what I meant. In my languageit is defined as "portage == package-manager", which reflects my limited usage of others.
My question was more, why does it need to be related to an EAPI? To me it seems to be more PM internals specific.

In summary, I'd like to speed up the realization and inclusion.

[Comment 4 Ciaran McCreesh 2011-04-04 12:29:36 UTC]

The format of updates is covered by PMS.

[Comment 5 Petteri Räty (RETIRED) 2011-04-04 12:37:11 UTC]

(In reply to comment #3)
> No, that wasn't what I meant. In my languageit is defined as "portage ==
> package-manager", which reflects my limited usage of others.
> My question was more, why does it need to be related to an EAPI? To me it seems
> to be more PM internals specific.
> 

It's a file that developers update. Ideally the file would behave identically across all package managers.

[Comment 6 Justin Lecher (RETIRED) 2011-04-04 12:40:37 UTC]

So whom do I have to talk to to speed things up here?

[Comment 7 Ciaran McCreesh 2011-04-04 12:46:23 UTC]

You need a design that everyone likes, then you need an implementation in Portage.

Having said that, moves are bad. We shouldn't be making things even worse than they already are.

[Comment 8 Ulrich Müller 2019-08-23 16:45:08 UTC]

No progress since 8 years. Is anyone still interested in this feature? Otherwise, I shall close this bug.

[Comment 9 Michał Górny 2019-09-28 18:25:22 UTC]

This would be extremely hard to do.  Besides needing some kind of alias logic to keep pkg_* phases of binpkgs/vdb working, there is a problem of USE dependencies.

I don't think this would really work fine as global moves.  For per-package moves, it could result in breaking '[foo?]' kind of USE-deps ­— we would probably have to introduce flag mapping syntax first.

[Comment 10 Ulrich Müller 2021-08-31 13:47:37 UTC]

Closing per comment 8 and comment 9.