| 1 |
On 11/28/2010 12:07 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: |
| 2 |
> 2010-11-28 20:59:05 Zac Medico napisał(a): |
| 3 |
>> It seems like you're trying to bypass an important function of repoman |
| 4 |
>> though. The idea is that repoman is supposed to protect users from |
| 5 |
>> experiencing unsatisfiable dependencies of this sort, and use.mask |
| 6 |
>> accomplishes that. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> If "python_abis_2.7", "python_abis_3.1" and "python_abis_3.2" USE flags are masked using use.mask |
| 9 |
> on given architectures until Python 2.7, 3.1 and 3.2 are stabilized on these architectures, then |
| 10 |
> majority of reverse dependencies of Python wouldn't be tested with new versions of Python. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Example {,R}DEPEND: |
| 13 |
> python_abis_2.4? ( dev-lang/python:2.4 ) |
| 14 |
> python_abis_2.5? ( dev-lang/python:2.5 ) |
| 15 |
> python_abis_2.6? ( dev-lang/python:2.6 ) |
| 16 |
> python_abis_2.7? ( dev-lang/python:2.7 ) |
| 17 |
> python_abis_3.0? ( dev-lang/python:3.0 ) |
| 18 |
> python_abis_3.1? ( dev-lang/python:3.1 ) |
| 19 |
> python_abis_3.2? ( dev-lang/python:3.2 ) |
| 20 |
> python_abis_2.5-jython? ( dev-java/jython:2.5 ) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
It seems like the problem here is that we don't have separate profiles |
| 23 |
for stable and unstable keywords. The obvious solution would be to have |
| 24 |
separate profiles, mask the flags in the stable profiles, and unmask the |
| 25 |
flags in the unstable profiles. That way, repoman would continue to |
| 26 |
protect stable profile users from unsatisfiable dependencies, without |
| 27 |
unnecessarily masking those choices from unstable profile users. |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Thanks, |
| 30 |
Zac |
Archives