1 |
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 10:33:32 +0100 |
2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:54:56 +0530 |
5 |
> Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > I don't see any features in EAPI 3 and 4 that are useful for the |
7 |
> > profiles. However, a bump to EAPI 2 (or at least 1) would be |
8 |
> > *extremely* beneficial, and cause much less chaos. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > Speaking with my GNOME hat, it will be *extremely* useful for |
11 |
> > slot-masking GNOME packages. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> If that route is taken, I'd recommend 1 rather than 2, for the simple |
14 |
> reason that if 2 is introduced to profiles, we need to have a very |
15 |
> careful discussion about the meanings of use dependencies in profile |
16 |
> files. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> For example, people might think they can start masking cat/pkg[flag]. |
19 |
> Is this a replacement for package.use.mask or does it mean something |
20 |
> else? I have a sneaking suspicion that if there's not a policy saying |
21 |
> "no use deps in profiles" then people will start trying to use them |
22 |
> for all kinds of horrible hacks that would be better being fixed |
23 |
> properly. |
24 |
|
25 |
Do you consider masking USE flags in repositories a 'horrible hack'? |
26 |
Because that's the use I see for newer-EAPI profile. |
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
Best regards, |
30 |
Michał Górny |