| 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/ |
Archives