| 1 |
On 12/27/2012 05:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> EAPI 5 provides use.stable.mask files to solve this but those files |
| 3 |
> require profiles to be EAPI 5. Therefore, in order to be able to use it |
| 4 |
> we would have to actually break the update path for older portage |
| 5 |
> versions completely. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
So, adding new profiles and deprecating the old ones is considered to |
| 8 |
"break the update path for older versions"? I don't a problem with |
| 9 |
deprecating profiles and forcing users to switch. The only manual labor |
| 10 |
involved could be `emerge -1 portage && eselect profile set <target>`. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> I have tried to raise the topic on the mailing list [1] but it mostly |
| 13 |
> resulted in some people agreeing that it is an issue that should be |
| 14 |
> addressed but no real ideas. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I have come up with three possible solutions myself. Long story short: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> a) adding new profiles which will require EAPI=5 and requiring all |
| 19 |
> users to migrate to them after upgrading portage. Using new |
| 20 |
> use.stable.mask files in those profiles. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
This was my plan all along, and seems perfectly reasonable to me. |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Thanks, |
| 25 |
Zac |
Archives