From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B36C1381F3 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:33:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 397BDE0022; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:33:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9D6821C046 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:32:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiocik.lan (77-254-82-147.adsl.inetia.pl [77.254.82.147]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B37D233DA71; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:32:33 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 07:32:18 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: axs@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting EAPI 5 *use.stable.mask to work in gx86? Message-ID: <20121211073218.0edd117f@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <50C693FE.4050405@gentoo.org> References: <20121210222717.6424ef66@pomiocik.lan> <50C693FE.4050405@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.14; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA256; boundary="Sig_/Qsyd3xbm1q6_1g4o8w+BV4Y"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: cb8eff5c-ce74-47d4-ac8c-7b5b5feff057 X-Archives-Hash: 4d379ca96de60dae60a1087b1a3fde66 --Sig_/Qsyd3xbm1q6_1g4o8w+BV4Y Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:01:34 -0500 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 >=20 > On 10/12/12 04:27 PM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > Hello, > >=20 > > I think we're mostly aware what the use and benefits of the > > *use.stable.mask files are. > >=20 > > They would be at least really useful in Python ebuilds, where we=20 > > have to either: > >=20 > > a) forcedly stabilize a particular Python implementation (like > > pypy), > >=20 > > b) don't support it all, > >=20 > > c) or just keep two package revisions around, one with 'stable' > > Python implementations for stabilization and the other with all=20 > > implementations for testing users. > >=20 > >=20 > > Therefore, having *use.stable.mask would be at least helpful to us. > > But as far as I can see, the spec says we can use it only in > > profile dirs with EAPI 5... > >=20 > > So far, I doubt anyone would want us to migrate our major profiles=20 > > to a newer EAPI, like EAPI 4, not to mention fresh 5. And of > > course, that wouldn't follow our migration path practices. > >=20 > >=20 > > Therefore, I see the following solutions: > >=20 > > 1) duplicate most of the major profiles. Make an EAPI 5-enabled > > wrapper profiles which will provide the *use.stable.mask files. > > Require users to migrate to those profiles after getting an EAPI 5 > > capable package manager (how?). Possibly mask the relevant flags > > completely in other profiles. > >=20 > >=20 > > 2) change the rules. Make *use.stable.mask files not require EAPI > > 5 profile dirs but apply only to EAPI 5 packages. The outcome is > > similar -- package managers without the feature ignore the ebuilds. > > If they have EAPI 5, they should be able to handle stable unmasking > > as well. > >=20 > > Of course, it all falls apart because of package manager > > strictness. We may want to change that retroactively and quickly > > release updated package managers before the EAPI 5 support is > > spread wider (assuming some transitional period before we will > > start using the files), or defer it into EAPI 6. > >=20 > >=20 > > Either way, I believe that *use.stable.mask would be very helpful > > if we were able to use it. What are your thoughts? > >=20 >=20 > I wonder how (2) would really differ from the current situation -- ie, > if there's a use.stable.mask file in a profiles dir, and portage is > too old to support it, doesn't it just get ignored? Well, assuming the EAPI 5 support is applied at once, that portage version will ignore EAPI 5 packages as well, making the file therefore irrelevant. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/Qsyd3xbm1q6_1g4o8w+BV4Y Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iJwEAQEIAAYFAlDG034ACgkQfXuS5UK5QB2pQwP9HTZQbUdkVb9qnGlowrhh1Quz /JxLTdym/obSBfU73g8S6a5oVcPsY1/jfBD6OddLk1+2UMBvYwqw53CtC/iXINjE NU4QztceB8pk6V52RoIG919mOPYTBJWH7411EvMa2P2th3L3/4xeaslbYHSgVIQ5 7cxt526WXv8RB9yD1LY= =1UnW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Qsyd3xbm1q6_1g4o8w+BV4Y--