Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08

[Michał Górny]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:21:13 +0100
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote:

> Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2012, 14:37:37 schrieb Michał Górny:
> >
> > a) adding new profiles which will require EAPI=5 and requiring all
> > users to migrate to them after upgrading portage. Using new
> > use.stable.mask files in those profiles.
> >
> > b) adding new profiles (with current EAPIs) and requesting our unstable
> > users to migrate to them. Masking the relevant USE flags globally
> > and unmasking in those profiles.
> >
> > c) 'fixing' the use.stable.mask feature and wording it in such a way
> > that it would apply to EAPI 5 (or 6) packages independently of profiles
> > EAPI.
> >
>
> As the original proponent of the .stable.mask files, I'd recommend solution
> c). This is what I intended to achieve in the beginning; I accepted to place
> this into a new profile EAPI after I saw no chance of it going into PMS
> otherwise.
>
> According to PMS, profile directories may contain files not recognized by the
> package manager. A package manager that does not understand the stable.mask
> files will thus -if PMS-compliant- just ignore them.

But the PMS-compliant package managers would not apply them as well. So
we either have to do that in a new EAPI which could be a bit confusing
in wording, or retroactively change EAPI 5 which will require fixes to
package managers and could cause random issues with stable systems
which haven't updated the pm yet.

> Solutions a) and b) have the big disadvantage that you will never ever be able
> to use the stable.mask files in the main profile directory or the base profile
> (since there the main profile EAPI setting will apply also in the future).
> Other disadvantages have also been discussed.

Yes, especially b) would mostly mean that the *stable.mask files are
useful mostly for overlays.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny