Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for items for September 13 council meeting
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:45:50
Message-Id: 20110918164714.389cc67c@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for items for September 13 council meeting by Ciaran McCreesh
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for items for September 13 council meeting Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>