Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting EAPI 5 *use.stable.mask to work in gx86?

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1453 bytes --]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:44:25 -0800
Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 12/11/2012 01:45 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:35:07 -0800
> > Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Michał Górny 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> 
> The main use case for *use.stable.mask that I'm aware of is that it's
> handy for masking flags to pass repoman checks. For example,
> sys-apps/portage could use it for the pypy1_9 flag. Otherwise, we have
> to mask that flag for a given portage version before we can add stable
> keywords.

Yes, and having 'stable' and 'unstable' profiles will work just
the same. Except for the fact that it will be a bit cleaner, not require
EAPI=5 at all and probably make arch testing a bit easier for a few
people.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]