1 |
Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2012, 14:37:37 schrieb Michał Górny: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> a) adding new profiles which will require EAPI=5 and requiring all |
4 |
> users to migrate to them after upgrading portage. Using new |
5 |
> use.stable.mask files in those profiles. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> b) adding new profiles (with current EAPIs) and requesting our unstable |
8 |
> users to migrate to them. Masking the relevant USE flags globally |
9 |
> and unmasking in those profiles. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> c) 'fixing' the use.stable.mask feature and wording it in such a way |
12 |
> that it would apply to EAPI 5 (or 6) packages independently of profiles |
13 |
> EAPI. |
14 |
> |
15 |
|
16 |
As the original proponent of the .stable.mask files, I'd recommend solution |
17 |
c). This is what I intended to achieve in the beginning; I accepted to place |
18 |
this into a new profile EAPI after I saw no chance of it going into PMS |
19 |
otherwise. |
20 |
|
21 |
According to PMS, profile directories may contain files not recognized by the |
22 |
package manager. A package manager that does not understand the stable.mask |
23 |
files will thus -if PMS-compliant- just ignore them. |
24 |
|
25 |
Solutions a) and b) have the big disadvantage that you will never ever be able |
26 |
to use the stable.mask files in the main profile directory or the base profile |
27 |
(since there the main profile EAPI setting will apply also in the future). |
28 |
Other disadvantages have also been discussed. |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
Andreas K. Huettel |
32 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
33 |
dilfridge@g.o |
34 |
http://www.akhuettel.de/ |