| 1 |
On 09/18/2011 07:20 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 2 |
> What other meanings could it have? What would be the problem with |
| 3 |
> moving the package use flag masks from package.use.mask to package.mask? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
As Ciaran said, these two kinds of masks give two very different |
| 6 |
behaviors that are not interchangeable in current dependency resolvers. |
| 7 |
If you make make them interchangeable, then you take away a kind of |
| 8 |
granularity that is provided by having them separate, and you also have |
| 9 |
to change how the dependency resolvers handle them in all package |
| 10 |
managers (and repoman too). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> As we're talking about updating profiles EAPI, what do we need to get |
| 13 |
> to be able to mask use flags for the stable tree, but not the testing |
| 14 |
> tree? Also, should we get back to the discussion of decoupling |
| 15 |
> keywords from ebuilds and move them to profiles? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
As I have said before [1], I would suggest to create separate profiles |
| 18 |
for stable and unstable, and add separate entries to profiles.desc so |
| 19 |
that repoman can check them separately. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
[1] |
| 22 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_32b26e8f276201923a8fb05dc83d8832.xml |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Thanks, |
| 25 |
Zac |
Archives