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 C33731381F3 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:46:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BF5EB21C047; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:46:41 +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 6C6FD21C012 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:46:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiocik.lan (unknown [213.241.61.245]) (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 2DB1E33DBBD; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:45:58 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 22:45:58 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: zmedico@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting EAPI 5 *use.stable.mask to work in gx86? Message-ID: <20121211224558.531d438d@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <50C6D41B.703@gentoo.org> References: <20121210222717.6424ef66@pomiocik.lan> <50C6D41B.703@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_/4jZeqJzy8t5Xae4daGytL6s"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: dad86ef0-40ed-4807-bc7f-c95ea95d0af5 X-Archives-Hash: 0d7fed562b280890fa830acc92f20979 --Sig_/4jZeqJzy8t5Xae4daGytL6s Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:35:07 -0800 Zac Medico wrote: > On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > 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 > I think this is the obvious solution. You can make users migrate by > adding "deprecated" files to the old profiles. To be honest, I don't see much benefit from it compared to not having the *stable.use.mask files at all and just adding separate stable profiles. AFAICS, that would have three advantages over the proposed solution: 1) the 'new' profiles wouldn't need to be EAPI=3D5 and therefore the solution will work correctly even for quite an ancient package managers, 2) less users will have to switch profiles. Even if for safety we wanted the unstable users to switch profiles, 3) package.accept_keywords will not magically switch masks. This one probably is a matter of taste but if some arch testers actually use package.accept_keywords to quickly test packages before stabilizing them, EAPI=3D5 solution will automatically unmask the flags which won't be present on a stable system. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/4jZeqJzy8t5Xae4daGytL6s Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iJwEAQEIAAYFAlDHqZsACgkQfXuS5UK5QB3ZbAQAiYdYCxQAZMEqVwXru+6ei+7/ BsKgNKbqCRjJCoO5ylFL5KG95I+8EbSIxCCo/ybXEl2LuMNC+OaDMeTLEM9F1tZK oYaZa9HiJYNHqjntzrnFFMH3RIcnj/12mRKxVgv0HnM8uJ4fNTQ2M6GWy7buo4Zj 5X9v+J13BxpBNcyuyEM= =xHFv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/4jZeqJzy8t5Xae4daGytL6s--