| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 10/12/12 04:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> Hello, |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I think we're mostly aware what the use and benefits of the |
| 8 |
> *use.stable.mask files are. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> They would be at least really useful in Python ebuilds, where we |
| 11 |
> have to either: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> a) forcedly stabilize a particular Python implementation (like |
| 14 |
> pypy), |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> b) don't support it all, |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> c) or just keep two package revisions around, one with 'stable' |
| 19 |
> Python implementations for stabilization and the other with all |
| 20 |
> implementations for testing users. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Therefore, having *use.stable.mask would be at least helpful to us. |
| 24 |
> But as far as I can see, the spec says we can use it only in |
| 25 |
> profile dirs with EAPI 5... |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> So far, I doubt anyone would want us to migrate our major profiles |
| 28 |
> to a newer EAPI, like EAPI 4, not to mention fresh 5. And of |
| 29 |
> course, that wouldn't follow our migration path practices. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Therefore, I see the following solutions: |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> 1) duplicate most of the major profiles. Make an EAPI 5-enabled |
| 35 |
> wrapper profiles which will provide the *use.stable.mask files. |
| 36 |
> Require users to migrate to those profiles after getting an EAPI 5 |
| 37 |
> capable package manager (how?). Possibly mask the relevant flags |
| 38 |
> completely in other profiles. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> 2) change the rules. Make *use.stable.mask files not require EAPI |
| 42 |
> 5 profile dirs but apply only to EAPI 5 packages. The outcome is |
| 43 |
> similar -- package managers without the feature ignore the ebuilds. |
| 44 |
> If they have EAPI 5, they should be able to handle stable unmasking |
| 45 |
> as well. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Of course, it all falls apart because of package manager |
| 48 |
> strictness. We may want to change that retroactively and quickly |
| 49 |
> release updated package managers before the EAPI 5 support is |
| 50 |
> spread wider (assuming some transitional period before we will |
| 51 |
> start using the files), or defer it into EAPI 6. |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> Either way, I believe that *use.stable.mask would be very helpful |
| 55 |
> if we were able to use it. What are your thoughts? |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
I wonder how (2) would really differ from the current situation -- ie, |
| 59 |
if there's a use.stable.mask file in a profiles dir, and portage is |
| 60 |
too old to support it, doesn't it just get ignored? |
| 61 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 62 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlDGk/4ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBkogEAsqOBZBa1n63+dkd/mz7XzFzy |
| 65 |
XHoshXhY5kOMTMKz7NgBAI9JODGAp9VGlAZg2w7lOoAFTmvgQyElWY0AA/9Sn6h7 |
| 66 |
=rHGA |
| 67 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives