1 |
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:42:27 +0000 |
2 |
"Tony \"Chainsaw\" Vroon" <chainsaw@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> In less than two weeks, on Tuesday January the 8th, the council will meet again. |
5 |
> Now is the time to prepare & raise items that you feel should be put to a vote. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Please reply to this e-mail with any suggested agenda items. Even if you have raised |
8 |
> the issue on a mailing list before, please repeat it now to avoid it being missed. |
9 |
|
10 |
I'd like the Council to raise the topic of using stable USE masks |
11 |
in gx86 tree. |
12 |
|
13 |
The issue is that Python packages have USE-conditional (PYTHON_TARGETS) |
14 |
dependencies upon new, unstable Python versions. Therefore, |
15 |
if a particular package is to be stabilized, the relevant USE flags have |
16 |
to be masked (or removed) in order to fulfill the dependencies |
17 |
on a stable system. |
18 |
|
19 |
Currently we're resolving this through using two revisions |
20 |
for a package, one with the relevant flags removed (going stable) |
21 |
and a newer one with all flags enabled. However, this is very |
22 |
inconvenient for us. |
23 |
|
24 |
EAPI 5 provides use.stable.mask files to solve this but those files |
25 |
require profiles to be EAPI 5. Therefore, in order to be able to use it |
26 |
we would have to actually break the update path for older portage |
27 |
versions completely. |
28 |
|
29 |
I have tried to raise the topic on the mailing list [1] but it mostly |
30 |
resulted in some people agreeing that it is an issue that should be |
31 |
addressed but no real ideas. |
32 |
|
33 |
I have come up with three possible solutions myself. Long story short: |
34 |
|
35 |
a) adding new profiles which will require EAPI=5 and requiring all |
36 |
users to migrate to them after upgrading portage. Using new |
37 |
use.stable.mask files in those profiles. |
38 |
|
39 |
b) adding new profiles (with current EAPIs) and requesting our unstable |
40 |
users to migrate to them. Masking the relevant USE flags globally |
41 |
and unmasking in those profiles. |
42 |
|
43 |
c) 'fixing' the use.stable.mask feature and wording it in such a way |
44 |
that it would apply to EAPI 5 (or 6) packages independently of profiles |
45 |
EAPI. |
46 |
|
47 |
I have also opened bug 447090 [2] in order to try to get some feedback |
48 |
on b) but nobody bothered to answer. |
49 |
|
50 |
[1]:http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/81877 |
51 |
[2]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=447090 |
52 |
|
53 |
-- |
54 |
Best regards, |
55 |
Michał Górny |