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 912DC1381F3 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:33:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 54FFE21C01D; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:33:25 +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 2F89321C075 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:32:38 +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 1AB4F33DB91; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:32:35 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:32:31 +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: <20121212103231.546140e2@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <50C7D369.2060204@gentoo.org> References: <20121210222717.6424ef66@pomiocik.lan> <50C6D41B.703@gentoo.org> <20121211224558.531d438d@pomiocik.lan> <50C7D369.2060204@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_/Js7FDpYe=6WMbfPYaBAQ9qk"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 9564bc82-aa45-46ce-a376-9032ea01da2c X-Archives-Hash: ba51e207fad3f6b3b112b96d7bb3c872 --Sig_/Js7FDpYe=6WMbfPYaBAQ9qk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:44:25 -0800 Zac Medico wrote: > On 12/11/2012 01:45 PM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:35:07 -0800 > > Zac Medico wrote: > >=20 > >> 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 wrapp= er > >>> 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. > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > 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=3D5 at all and probably make arch testing a bit easier for a few people. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/Js7FDpYe=6WMbfPYaBAQ9qk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iJwEAQEIAAYFAlDITzUACgkQfXuS5UK5QB21aQP+OvjsUpLn1FHPIMDEKVq9WTwT 3X1Zo3uviB7T1sEYx6Wql+1IhGcJg3PmcoWWPC0AAIAM1d2N/jEBUV05n2awjEl4 UasFIokPbdoKVit+mC5k19MQ9kLjxBzh5spWZIFfFTRlO1kNbyuN/v2M/ZLzKgSd qSUpBNcKb0ajHPL20ok= =6GUR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Js7FDpYe=6WMbfPYaBAQ9qk--