| 1 |
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:41:08 -0800 |
| 2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 12/27/2012 05:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > EAPI 5 provides use.stable.mask files to solve this but those files |
| 6 |
> > require profiles to be EAPI 5. Therefore, in order to be able to use it |
| 7 |
> > we would have to actually break the update path for older portage |
| 8 |
> > versions completely. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> So, adding new profiles and deprecating the old ones is considered to |
| 11 |
> "break the update path for older versions"? I don't a problem with |
| 12 |
> deprecating profiles and forcing users to switch. The only manual labor |
| 13 |
> involved could be `emerge -1 portage && eselect profile set <target>`. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
No, breaking the update path was about going EAPI=5 in the base |
| 16 |
profiles. But at some point I think we'd deprecate and remove the old |
| 17 |
profiles anyway. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Best regards, |
| 21 |
Michał Górny |
Archives