Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists. c.f. bug 424647
| Navigation: |
|
Lists:
gentoo-pms:
< Prev
By Thread
Next >
< Prev
By Date
Next >
|
| Headers: |
|
To:
|
gentoo-pms@g.o
|
|
From:
|
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o>
|
|
Subject:
|
Re: package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
|
|
Date:
|
Sun, 1 Jul 2012 21:22:48 +0200
|
|
Am Samstag 23 Juni 2012, 22:17:51 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> 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.
OK, additional patch (on top of the previous one) is included. It states that
atoms inside package.use.stable.mask etc *must* resolve only to EAPI 5
ebuilds.
I'm not fully convinced yet that this restriction is really necessary, but
it's imho a compromise.
Cheers,
Andreas
--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
dilfridge@g.o
http://www.akhuettel.de/
|
| Attachment: |
|
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part.)
|
|
