| 1 |
On 12/11/2012 01:45 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:35:07 -0800 |
| 3 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> 1) duplicate most of the major profiles. Make an EAPI 5-enabled wrapper |
| 7 |
>>> profiles which will provide the *use.stable.mask files. Require users |
| 8 |
>>> to migrate to those profiles after getting an EAPI 5 capable package |
| 9 |
>>> manager (how?). Possibly mask the relevant flags completely in other |
| 10 |
>>> profiles. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> I think this is the obvious solution. You can make users migrate by |
| 13 |
>> adding "deprecated" files to the old profiles. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> To be honest, I don't see much benefit from it compared to not having |
| 16 |
> the *stable.use.mask files at all and just adding separate stable |
| 17 |
> profiles. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The main use case for *use.stable.mask that I'm aware of is that it's |
| 20 |
handy for masking flags to pass repoman checks. For example, |
| 21 |
sys-apps/portage could use it for the pypy1_9 flag. Otherwise, we have |
| 22 |
to mask that flag for a given portage version before we can add stable |
| 23 |
keywords. |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Thanks, |
| 26 |
Zac |
Archives