On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 10:33:32 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@...> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:54:56 +0530
> Nirbheek Chauhan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I don't see any features in EAPI 3 and 4 that are useful for the
> > profiles. However, a bump to EAPI 2 (or at least 1) would be
> > *extremely* beneficial, and cause much less chaos.
> > Speaking with my GNOME hat, it will be *extremely* useful for
> > slot-masking GNOME packages.
> If that route is taken, I'd recommend 1 rather than 2, for the simple
> reason that if 2 is introduced to profiles, we need to have a very
> careful discussion about the meanings of use dependencies in profile
> For example, people might think they can start masking cat/pkg[flag].
> Is this a replacement for package.use.mask or does it mean something
> else? I have a sneaking suspicion that if there's not a policy saying
> "no use deps in profiles" then people will start trying to use them
> for all kinds of horrible hacks that would be better being fixed
Do you consider masking USE flags in repositories a 'horrible hack'?
Because that's the use I see for newer-EAPI profile.