| 1 |
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:54:56 +0530 |
| 2 |
Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> I don't see any features in EAPI 3 and 4 that are useful for the |
| 4 |
> profiles. However, a bump to EAPI 2 (or at least 1) would be |
| 5 |
> *extremely* beneficial, and cause much less chaos. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Speaking with my GNOME hat, it will be *extremely* useful for |
| 8 |
> slot-masking GNOME packages. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
If that route is taken, I'd recommend 1 rather than 2, for the simple |
| 11 |
reason that if 2 is introduced to profiles, we need to have a very |
| 12 |
careful discussion about the meanings of use dependencies in profile |
| 13 |
files. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
For example, people might think they can start masking cat/pkg[flag]. |
| 16 |
Is this a replacement for package.use.mask or does it mean something |
| 17 |
else? I have a sneaking suspicion that if there's not a policy saying |
| 18 |
"no use deps in profiles" then people will start trying to use them for |
| 19 |
all kinds of horrible hacks that would be better being fixed properly. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives