Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for items for September 13 council meeting

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:20:34 +0000
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > For example, people might think they can start masking
> > cat/pkg[flag]. Is this a replacement for package.use.mask or does
> > it mean something else? I have a sneaking suspicion that if there's
> > not a policy saying "no use deps in profiles" then people will
> > start trying to use them for all kinds of horrible hacks that would
> > be better being fixed properly.
> 
> What other meanings could it have? What would be the problem with
> moving the package use flag masks from package.use.mask to
> package.mask?

Well, the behaviour is likely going to be different. Unless a package
manager adds in special behaviour to cover this, use dependencies in
package.mask will prevent an upgrade whereas package.use.mask allows
the upgrade but disables the flag.

I think that example illustrates perfectly why we don't want to just
blindly enable EAPI 2 in profiles.

> As we're talking about updating profiles EAPI, what do we need to get
> to be able to mask use flags for the stable tree, but not the testing
> tree?

Every time this has come up, the conclusion has been "it's a horrible
idea from a QA perspective, since it would mean that testing something
in ~arch would be different to testing it in arch".

> Also, should we get back to the discussion of decoupling
> keywords from ebuilds and move them to profiles?

So far as I'm aware, "not using CVS" is a prerequisite for this.

- -- 
Ciaran McCreesh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk52FT0ACgkQ96zL6DUtXhHrKACfRYXquFwMl3quPb7vmUwoSsO5
FFsAnjrYE9kJRMBoInAY1cWe6XiyAJ4m
=TQGA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----