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 82B131381F3 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:34:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 71E2A21C074; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:34:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mo-p05-ob.rzone.de (mo-p05-ob.rzone.de [81.169.146.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF82421C058 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:33:45 +0000 (UTC) X-RZG-AUTH: :IW0NeWCpcPchHrcnS4ebzBgQnKHTmUiSF2JlOcyz+57jTVMtVX7771jbiJc= X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo05 Received: from pinacolada.localnet (95-130-165-142.hsi.glasfaser-ostbayern.de [95.130.165.142]) by smtp.strato.de (jored mo30) (RZmta 31.9 AUTH) with ESMTPA id n05155oBDJtMdT for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:33:44 +0100 (CET) From: "Andreas K. Huettel" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting EAPI 5 *use.stable.mask to work in gx86? Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:33:50 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.4.9-gentoo; KDE/4.9.90; x86_64; ; ) References: <20121210222717.6424ef66@pomiocik.lan> <20121212103231.546140e2@pomiocik.lan> <50C85CB9.9040603@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <50C85CB9.9040603@gentoo.org> 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; boundary="nextPart3222716.pATuEPaGsb"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201212132133.57417.dilfridge@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: edb03181-e43a-4891-ade9-a6823db2f7c3 X-Archives-Hash: 123b81e90688725f15debd0aa936e834 --nextPart3222716.pATuEPaGsb Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012, 11:30:17 schrieb Zac Medico: > > 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 > Sounds good to me. Except that it completely breaks stabilization procedures, since packages a= re=20 then not only tested with a larger range of useflags, but with an entirely= =20 different profile. Not such a great idea.=20 The whole point of the stable masking was to keep the changes minimal when= =20 going from a "testing" to a "stable" state - by only restricting the use fl= ag=20 choices, and nothing else. This means most of the testing done with ~arch=20 packages is still valid and provides meaningful feedback to maintainers and= =20 arch teams for stabilization. In general, using a separate set of profiles, however, whill not help you=20 enabling the stable mask files, since these will then only be allowed insid= e=20 the new profiles. Not in the base profile or in the main profile directory,= =20 which still follows the old EAPI. In the sense of easy handling, noone will= =20 probably want to edit=20 profiles/highly_unstable/next_version/package.stable.mask.=20 I have basically given up that this "feature" will ever become useful= =20 for the main tree. Long live inertia. =2D-=20 Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer=20 dilfridge@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ --nextPart3222716.pATuEPaGsb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAlDKO7UACgkQ3ao2Zwy3NWqn/gCdGJJppIcSoNnB2/dpNesq2Kad t1kAn2pNqYQekXsLOpYbSZ15Q7AEDcbW =p97v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3222716.pATuEPaGsb--