Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 19:22:05
Message-Id: 201207012123.00255.dilfridge@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force by Ciaran McCreesh
1 Am Samstag 23 Juni 2012, 22:17:51 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
2 > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:09:31 +0200
3 >
4 > "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote:
5 > > It is certainly possible refine this more. Allowing only EAPI=5
6 > > ebuilds in package.use.stable.*, and have the files only take effect
7 > > there, comes to my mind. However I doubt if these restrictions are
8 > > really necessary and if a EAPI dependence at this place in the
9 > > profile makes actually sense.
10 >
11 > The way we usually word such things is to have a table of EAPIs where
12 > support is required if the package mangler accepts indicated EAPIs. Then
13 > it's an error for ebuilds to rely upon support if they don't use one of
14 > those EAPIs. This gets you out of the profile EAPI requirement.
15
16 OK, additional patch (on top of the previous one) is included. It states that
17 atoms inside package.use.stable.mask etc *must* resolve only to EAPI 5
18 ebuilds.
19
20 I'm not fully convinced yet that this restriction is really necessary, but
21 it's imho a compromise.
22
23 Cheers,
24 Andreas
25
26 --
27
28 Andreas K. Huettel
29 Gentoo Linux developer
30 dilfridge@g.o
31 http://www.akhuettel.de/

Attachments

File name MIME type
0002-Pin-stable-masking-to-EAPI-5.patch text/x-patch
signature.asc application/pgp-signature