1 |
On 11/28/2010 12:07 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: |
2 |
> 2010-11-28 20:59:05 Zac Medico napisaĆ(a): |
3 |
>> It seems like you're trying to bypass an important function of repoman |
4 |
>> though. The idea is that repoman is supposed to protect users from |
5 |
>> experiencing unsatisfiable dependencies of this sort, and use.mask |
6 |
>> accomplishes that. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> If "python_abis_2.7", "python_abis_3.1" and "python_abis_3.2" USE flags are masked using use.mask |
9 |
> on given architectures until Python 2.7, 3.1 and 3.2 are stabilized on these architectures, then |
10 |
> majority of reverse dependencies of Python wouldn't be tested with new versions of Python. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Example {,R}DEPEND: |
13 |
> python_abis_2.4? ( dev-lang/python:2.4 ) |
14 |
> python_abis_2.5? ( dev-lang/python:2.5 ) |
15 |
> python_abis_2.6? ( dev-lang/python:2.6 ) |
16 |
> python_abis_2.7? ( dev-lang/python:2.7 ) |
17 |
> python_abis_3.0? ( dev-lang/python:3.0 ) |
18 |
> python_abis_3.1? ( dev-lang/python:3.1 ) |
19 |
> python_abis_3.2? ( dev-lang/python:3.2 ) |
20 |
> python_abis_2.5-jython? ( dev-java/jython:2.5 ) |
21 |
|
22 |
It seems like the problem here is that we don't have separate profiles |
23 |
for stable and unstable keywords. The obvious solution would be to have |
24 |
separate profiles, mask the flags in the stable profiles, and unmask the |
25 |
flags in the unstable profiles. That way, repoman would continue to |
26 |
protect stable profile users from unsatisfiable dependencies, without |
27 |
unnecessarily masking those choices from unstable profile users. |
28 |
-- |
29 |
Thanks, |
30 |
Zac |