| 1 |
On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 19:06:02 +0100 |
| 2 |
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Am Freitag, 28. Dezember 2012, 11:19:23 schrieb Michał Górny: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > I don't think we can really avoid having the current 'base' profile, |
| 7 |
> > and I don't think that we should even try doing that. As far as I can |
| 8 |
> > see, the idea would be to mask the flags completely in base profile, |
| 9 |
> > and unmask in *stable.mask files. Do I get it correctly? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> [see also attached modified graphs] |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The idea would be *for the transition period*: have an additional directory |
| 14 |
> base5, which contains eapi=5, the stable mask files and nothing else. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> After the transition period, these files are merged into the main profile |
| 17 |
> directory, the base5 directory is removed from inheritance and deleted. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> During the transition period, an old installation using deprecated 10.0 |
| 20 |
> profile will "not see the stable mask files", which means the additional |
| 21 |
> useflag restrictions are just not enforced. Repoman will check against non- |
| 22 |
> deprecated profiles, which means it uses the 13.0 path. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Well, I guess it's acceptable. I think it's fine assuming that stable |
| 25 |
users don't enable flags relevant to packages not being stable. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> [Given the position in the depgraph, maybe a different name instead of base5 |
| 28 |
> would make sense. I just wanted to stick to the description from the last e- |
| 29 |
> mail.] |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I agree. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Best regards, |
| 35 |
Michał Górny |
Archives