-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 18-09-2011 09:33, 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 files.
> 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 properly.
What other meanings could it have? What would be the problem with
moving the package use flag masks from package.use.mask to package.mask?
As we're talking about updating profiles EAPI, what do we need to get
to be able to mask use flags for the stable tree, but not the testing
tree? Also, should we get back to the discussion of decoupling
keywords from ebuilds and move them to profiles?
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----