| 1 |
Am Dienstag, 14. August 2012, 23:55:47 schrieb Zac Medico: |
| 2 |
> It seems like there's some confusion here. Approving a new EAPI and |
| 3 |
> deciding to use a new EAPI in a given profile are two entirely different |
| 4 |
> things. If we want to us a new EAPI in a profile, we just have to deploy |
| 5 |
> it such that users are only exposed to that profile when they |
| 6 |
> consciously running `eselect profile` (and they can always revert back |
| 7 |
> to the previous profile if it turns out that their installed package |
| 8 |
> manager doesn't support the new profile). |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Yeah but... either |
| 11 |
1) we use such an obscure profile that noone actually notices the change, or |
| 12 |
2) we try to change something in the "big, well-known profiles", |
| 13 |
and then we're back at the start. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
So what good is including a feature in a new profile if there is no way to |
| 16 |
make it visible to "the users" in general? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Also, in this particular case, "stable use masking" is useful because it makes |
| 19 |
stabilization possible/simpler in cases where otherwise this would lead to |
| 20 |
broken dependencies (stable depending on ~arch). If only one small sub-profile |
| 21 |
provides the feature, we lose its whole advantage. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Andreas K. Huettel |
| 25 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
| 26 |
kde (team lead), sci, tex, arm, printing |
| 27 |
dilfridge@g.o |
| 28 |
http://www.akhuettel.de/ |
Archives