| 1 |
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:44:25 -0800 |
| 2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 12/11/2012 01:45 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:35:07 -0800 |
| 6 |
> > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >> On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 9 |
> >>> 1) duplicate most of the major profiles. Make an EAPI 5-enabled wrapper |
| 10 |
> >>> profiles which will provide the *use.stable.mask files. Require users |
| 11 |
> >>> to migrate to those profiles after getting an EAPI 5 capable package |
| 12 |
> >>> manager (how?). Possibly mask the relevant flags completely in other |
| 13 |
> >>> profiles. |
| 14 |
> >> |
| 15 |
> >> I think this is the obvious solution. You can make users migrate by |
| 16 |
> >> adding "deprecated" files to the old profiles. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > To be honest, I don't see much benefit from it compared to not having |
| 19 |
> > the *stable.use.mask files at all and just adding separate stable |
| 20 |
> > profiles. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> The main use case for *use.stable.mask that I'm aware of is that it's |
| 23 |
> handy for masking flags to pass repoman checks. For example, |
| 24 |
> sys-apps/portage could use it for the pypy1_9 flag. Otherwise, we have |
| 25 |
> to mask that flag for a given portage version before we can add stable |
| 26 |
> keywords. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Yes, and having 'stable' and 'unstable' profiles will work just |
| 29 |
the same. Except for the fact that it will be a bit cleaner, not require |
| 30 |
EAPI=5 at all and probably make arch testing a bit easier for a few |
| 31 |
people. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Best regards, |
| 35 |
Michał Górny |
Archives