Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:21:51
Message-Id: 20120623211751.7b9269b1@googlemail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-pms] package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force by "Andreas K. Huettel"
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:09:31 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote:
> It is certainly possible refine this more. Allowing only EAPI=5 > ebuilds in package.use.stable.*, and have the files only take effect > there, comes to my mind. However I doubt if these restrictions are > really necessary and if a EAPI dependence at this place in the > profile makes actually sense.
The way we usually word such things is to have a table of EAPIs where support is required if the package mangler accepts indicated EAPIs. Then it's an error for ebuilds to rely upon support if they don't use one of those EAPIs. This gets you out of the profile EAPI requirement. One thing that isn't addressed is what "stable" means. PMS doesn't currently attach that level of meaning to KEYWORDS. In particular, there's nothing implied about the relationship between ~x86 and x86. This matches how things were when the relevant parts were written. I'm not sure if Portage changed since then, but in the good old days, you'd get crazy things like amd64 users specifying ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~amd64 ~x86", which would be auto-merged with "amd64" from make.defaults. But that wouldn't result in x86 being accepted, so if someone stabled a package that was keyworded only ~x86, it could result in it becoming masked to users with that kind of wonky configuration... -- Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-pms] package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o>