| 1 |
El dom, 24-02-2013 a las 09:35 -0500, Rich Freeman escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I would like to ask about adding "systemd" USE flag to use.stable.mask |
| 4 |
> > to let us stop needing to revbump packages with optional systemd support |
| 5 |
> > when stabilizing them. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Are you ok with that? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Am I interpreting the impacts of this correctly? I believe this would |
| 10 |
> mean that if you ran systemd on an otherwise-stable system (that is, |
| 11 |
> only systemd and possibly udev are in package.keywords) then you won't |
| 12 |
> get systemd support in any of your other packages, even if it is |
| 13 |
> available in a stable version of that package? My only VM running |
| 14 |
> systemd just happens to be in that configuration, but I'm willing to |
| 15 |
> admit that I'm a bit of an edge case. :) |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Why exactly do we need to revbump packages with optional systemd |
| 18 |
> support when stabilizing them in the first place? ~arch users would |
| 19 |
> already have systemd support compiled if they use it, and stable users |
| 20 |
> would get it when it is stabilized. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I freely admit that there might be some nuance that I'm simply not |
| 23 |
> getting here... |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Rich |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
We need to revbump it because we cannot mark as stable a package that |
| 30 |
would pull a testing package when enabling a USE flag. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Isn't there any way to unmask systemd USE flag on your local setup |
| 33 |
(running testing systemd)? |
Archives