1 |
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:35:07 -0800 |
2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
5 |
> > 1) duplicate most of the major profiles. Make an EAPI 5-enabled wrapper |
6 |
> > profiles which will provide the *use.stable.mask files. Require users |
7 |
> > to migrate to those profiles after getting an EAPI 5 capable package |
8 |
> > manager (how?). Possibly mask the relevant flags completely in other |
9 |
> > profiles. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I think this is the obvious solution. You can make users migrate by |
12 |
> adding "deprecated" files to the old profiles. |
13 |
|
14 |
To be honest, I don't see much benefit from it compared to not having |
15 |
the *stable.use.mask files at all and just adding separate stable |
16 |
profiles. |
17 |
|
18 |
AFAICS, that would have three advantages over the proposed solution: |
19 |
|
20 |
1) the 'new' profiles wouldn't need to be EAPI=5 and therefore the |
21 |
solution will work correctly even for quite an ancient package managers, |
22 |
|
23 |
2) less users will have to switch profiles. Even if for safety we |
24 |
wanted the unstable users to switch profiles, |
25 |
|
26 |
3) package.accept_keywords will not magically switch masks. This one |
27 |
probably is a matter of taste but if some arch testers actually use |
28 |
package.accept_keywords to quickly test packages before stabilizing |
29 |
them, EAPI=5 solution will automatically unmask the flags which won't |
30 |
be present on a stable system. |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Best regards, |
34 |
Michał Górny |