Re: [gentoo-pms] package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:31:14 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote:
> Am Samstag, 23. Juni 2012, 22:17:51 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> > "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.
>
> Yeah but... the ebuilds themselves dont actually rely anywhere on the
> feature.

That's sort of true, although ebuilds operate in the context of the
tree, and the consistency tree as a whole relies upon them, so it's
still a suitable cop-out to avoid having to bump profile EAPIs.

> > 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.
>
> Not strictly true. Quoting the section that I am referring to:
>
> "A tilde prefixed keyword is, by convention, used to indicate a less
> stable package. It is generally assumed that any user accepting
> keyword \t{\textasciitilde{}foo} will also accept \t{foo}."
>
> I guess this gives us at least something to build on.

Mmm, that's fluff rather than specifying anything about what the
package mangler actually does. We don't even say what "accepting"
means, and we seem to need to now.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh