Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: Gentoo Developer Mailing List <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Cc: python@g.o, dev-portage@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] [review] adding first stable masks to the new profiles
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 17:37:27
Message-Id: 20130119183755.58aae224@pomiocik.lan
1 Hello,
2
3 We -- the Python team -- would like to add the first masks to the new
4 profiles. As a test target, I have chosen the python_targets_pypy1_9
5 flag.
6
7 I have prepared and committed the necessary changes to my CVS checkout
8 [1]. I would appreciate if you could review them and tell me if they
9 are done correctly.
10
11
12 The idea is that:
13
14 1) pypy1_9 is masked globally -- for old profiles and unsupported
15 arches,
16
17 2) pypy1_9 is unmasked for the new profiles in supported arches,
18
19 3) pypy1_9 is stable-masked for the new profiles in supported arches.
20
21
22 In order to test, I have added pypy1_9 to PYTHON_COMPAT
23 in app-portage/flaggie-0.2-r2 amd64&x86-stable ebuild. Sadly, it
24 doesn't seem to work but I believe it is a bug in repoman.
25
26 The interesting thing is that adding the stable-mask makes
27 the situation even worse. When testing without it, repoman complains
28 about non-keyworded pypy:1.9:
29
30 dependency.bad 36
31 app-portage/flaggie/flaggie-0.2-r2.ebuild: DEPEND: amd64(default/linux/amd64/10.0) ['dev-python/pypy:1.9']
32
33 When running with pypy1_9 flag stable-masked, it complains about
34 python-exec flags as well:
35
36 dependency.badindev 28
37 app-portage/flaggie/flaggie-0.2-r2.ebuild: DEPEND: amd64(default/linux/amd64/13.0) ['dev-python/python-exec[python_targets_python2_6?,python_targets_python2_7?,python_targets_python3_1?,python_targets_python3_2?,python_targets_pypy1_8?,python_targets_pypy1_9?,-python_single_target_python2_6(-),-python_single_target_python2_7(-),-python_single_target_python3_1(-),-python_single_target_python3_2(-),-python_single_target_pypy1_8(-),-python_single_target_pypy1_9(-)]', 'dev-python/pypy:1.9']
38
39 Long output short, it still complains about pypy:1.9 but seems also to
40 notice that pypy1_9 was masked in python-exec. But it is also masked
41 in the ebuild in question, therefore it shouldn't complain…
42
43 [1]:https://bitbucket.org/mgorny/gx86-working-tree/commits/54ec3860de
44
45 --
46 Best regards,
47 Michał Górny

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature