| 1 |
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 00:26:38 +0100 |
| 2 |
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Just to keep everyone updated, ... |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > FYI, the new 13.0 profiles are now all available in profiles.desc, for now |
| 7 |
> > all with status "dev" (i.e. repoman includes them only when you request |
| 8 |
> > developer profile checking). |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > This means the procedure below is complete up to and including point 5) |
| 11 |
> > now. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Please consider changing your profile symlink manually and testing the new |
| 14 |
> > profile tree. In case of problems, please file a bug and assign it to me |
| 15 |
> > (or tell me if I'm around). |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > If all goes well, we'll continue in a week. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> A small bug in repoman turned up when testing the EAPI=5 profiles, and |
| 21 |
> therefore we will wait for the next stable portage version before the 10.0 |
| 22 |
> profiles are deprecated. So, another 3-4 weeks to go maybe. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> [The only alternative would be to require all devs to run at least ~arch |
| 25 |
> portage, since the bug only affects repoman, not emerge.] |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
To be honest, I don't think this is really a blocker to deprecating |
| 28 |
the old profiles, unless you're talking about other bug than the one I |
| 29 |
filed. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
That bug just caused repoman to error about unstable dependencies when |
| 32 |
flags were stable-masked. This just means that developers with old |
| 33 |
repoman won't be able to commit stable ebuilds using stable-masked |
| 34 |
flags. Note that using the old profiles workarounds the issue through |
| 35 |
having those flags completely masked and therefore devs having no |
| 36 |
repoman checks on their dependencies at all... |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Best regards, |
| 40 |
Michał Górny |
Archives