Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting EAPI 5 *use.stable.mask to work in gx86?

[Michał Górny]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:01:34 -0500
Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 10/12/12 04:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I think we're mostly aware what the use and benefits of the
> > *use.stable.mask files are.
> >
> > They would be at least really useful in Python ebuilds, where we
> > have to either:
> >
> > a) forcedly stabilize a particular Python implementation (like
> > pypy),
> >
> > b) don't support it all,
> >
> > c) or just keep two package revisions around, one with 'stable'
> > Python implementations for stabilization and the other with all
> > implementations for testing users.
> >
> >
> > Therefore, having *use.stable.mask would be at least helpful to us.
> > But as far as I can see, the spec says we can use it only in
> > profile dirs with EAPI 5...
> >
> > So far, I doubt anyone would want us to migrate our major profiles
> > to a newer EAPI, like EAPI 4, not to mention fresh 5. And of
> > course, that wouldn't follow our migration path practices.
> >
> >
> > Therefore, I see the following solutions:
> >
> > 1) duplicate most of the major profiles. Make an EAPI 5-enabled
> > wrapper profiles which will provide the *use.stable.mask files.
> > Require users to migrate to those profiles after getting an EAPI 5
> > capable package manager (how?). Possibly mask the relevant flags
> > completely in other profiles.
> >
> >
> > 2) change the rules. Make *use.stable.mask files not require EAPI
> > 5 profile dirs but apply only to EAPI 5 packages. The outcome is
> > similar -- package managers without the feature ignore the ebuilds.
> > If they have EAPI 5, they should be able to handle stable unmasking
> > as well.
> >
> > Of course, it all falls apart because of package manager
> > strictness. We may want to change that retroactively and quickly
> > release updated package managers before the EAPI 5 support is
> > spread wider (assuming some transitional period before we will
> > start using the files), or defer it into EAPI 6.
> >
> >
> > Either way, I believe that *use.stable.mask would be very helpful
> > if we were able to use it. What are your thoughts?
> >
>
> I wonder how (2) would really differ from the current situation -- ie,
> if there's a use.stable.mask file in a profiles dir, and portage is
> too old to support it, doesn't it just get ignored?

Well, assuming the EAPI 5 support is applied at once, that portage
version will ignore EAPI 5 packages as well, making the file therefore
irrelevant.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny