Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>
Subject: Re: Feature request: package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:31:10 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 26/04/12 06:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I'd like to suggest we introduce the following very useful feature,
> as soon as possible (which likely means in the next EAPI?):
> 
> * two new files in profile directories supported,
> package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force * syntax is
> identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force * meaning is
> identical to package.use.mask and package.use.force, except that 
> the resulting rules are ONLY applied iff a stable keyword is in
> use
> 
> Rationale: Often single features are "not ready for production
> yet", but the remaining package with that feature disabled would be
> a perfect candidate for stabilization. Right now this can be solved
> by * masking the useflag, which then makes the feature inaccessible
> even for ~arch * masking the useflag for exactly one package
> revision, which is hell to maintain * or introducing different
> package revisions with/without the useflag, which is also a mess.


I would think, personally, that masking the useflag on a per-package
basis would be better than this new feature -- it is more work as it
needs to be done for all the different ~arch packages the use flag
applies to, but it would mean that when a given ~arch version bump has
that feature ready one wouldn't lose the mask on the previous ~arch
versions.  It would also mean (i assume) that this flag would be
masked if that version went stable too (although in reality I would
expect this wouldn't ever occur).

There are potentially a lot of package entries to manage if this were,
say, a flag like 'introspection'..  however, i'm sure maintaining this
could be scriptable couldn't it?


> 
> Where this would (have been|be) useful: * we had for a long time
> different revisions of subversion with/without kde useflag *
> cups-1.4 had the infamous libusb backend triggered by USE=usb *
> cups-1.5 has optional systemd support via a systemd useflag, which
> pulls in non-stabilized systemd as dependency...
> 

I'm not sure that I'm following the cups examples here.  For cups-1.5
even if it were stable, if someone actually wanted to use systemd on
their system and unmasked/keyworded it (while running stable
everything else) I don't see why this would be an issue that would
need this new masking feature (unless IUSE="+systemd", which probably
shouldn't be the case anyways).

Ian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAk+ara4ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPALZwD/bIk3GzOThs6P/2EkWn2DxvEY
XHQZVUvmc1dJBERmSiIA/3saDFCoK79S8fw+2Q9Myf9Lt6PdEc4u1j48QcDf+sKW
=XQ3/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Replies:
Re: Feature request: package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
-- Andreas K. Huettel
References:
Feature request: package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
-- Andreas K. Huettel
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Feature request: package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
Next by thread:
Re: Feature request: package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
Previous by date:
Re: Re: Making user patches globally available
Next by date:
Re: Re: New license: yEd Software License Agreement


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.