Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:30:20
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force by Ciaran McCreesh
Am Samstag, 23. Juni 2012, 22:17:51 schrieb Ciaran McCreesh:
> "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: > > It is certainly possible refine this more. Allowing only EAPI=5 > > ebuilds in package.use.stable.*, and have the files only take effect > > there, comes to my mind. However I doubt if these restrictions are > > really necessary and if a EAPI dependence at this place in the > > profile makes actually sense. > > The way we usually word such things is to have a table of EAPIs where > support is required if the package mangler accepts indicated EAPIs. Then > it's an error for ebuilds to rely upon support if they don't use one of > those EAPIs. This gets you out of the profile EAPI requirement.
Yeah but... the ebuilds themselves dont actually rely anywhere on the feature.
> One thing that isn't addressed is what "stable" means. PMS doesn't > currently attach that level of meaning to KEYWORDS. In particular, > there's nothing implied about the relationship between ~x86 and x86.
Not strictly true. Quoting the section that I am referring to: "A tilde prefixed keyword is, by convention, used to indicate a less stable package. It is generally assumed that any user accepting keyword \t{\textasciitilde{}foo} will also accept \t{foo}." I guess this gives us at least something to build on. -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer kde (team lead), sci, tex, arm, printing dilfridge@g.o


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


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] package.use.stable.mask and package.use.stable.force Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>