1 |
2010-11-28 21:30:47 Zac Medico napisał(a): |
2 |
> On 11/28/2010 12:07 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: |
3 |
> > 2010-11-28 20:59:05 Zac Medico napisał(a): |
4 |
> >> It seems like you're trying to bypass an important function of repoman |
5 |
> >> though. The idea is that repoman is supposed to protect users from |
6 |
> >> experiencing unsatisfiable dependencies of this sort, and use.mask |
7 |
> >> accomplishes that. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > If "python_abis_2.7", "python_abis_3.1" and "python_abis_3.2" USE flags are masked using use.mask |
10 |
> > on given architectures until Python 2.7, 3.1 and 3.2 are stabilized on these architectures, then |
11 |
> > majority of reverse dependencies of Python wouldn't be tested with new versions of Python. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > Example {,R}DEPEND: |
14 |
> > python_abis_2.4? ( dev-lang/python:2.4 ) |
15 |
> > python_abis_2.5? ( dev-lang/python:2.5 ) |
16 |
> > python_abis_2.6? ( dev-lang/python:2.6 ) |
17 |
> > python_abis_2.7? ( dev-lang/python:2.7 ) |
18 |
> > python_abis_3.0? ( dev-lang/python:3.0 ) |
19 |
> > python_abis_3.1? ( dev-lang/python:3.1 ) |
20 |
> > python_abis_3.2? ( dev-lang/python:3.2 ) |
21 |
> > python_abis_2.5-jython? ( dev-java/jython:2.5 ) |
22 |
> |
23 |
> It seems like the problem here is that we don't have separate profiles |
24 |
> for stable and unstable keywords. The obvious solution would be to have |
25 |
> separate profiles, mask the flags in the stable profiles, and unmask the |
26 |
> flags in the unstable profiles. That way, repoman would continue to |
27 |
> protect stable profile users from unsatisfiable dependencies, without |
28 |
> unnecessarily masking those choices from unstable profile users. |
29 |
|
30 |
I would prefer small number of additional files instead of huge proliferation of profiles. |
31 |
You also suggested using EAPI="4"-specific profiles instead of EAPI-versioned files, so eventually |
32 |
we might have about 4 times more profiles :) . |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis |