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 E96D41381F3 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:44:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7EBFB21C071; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:44:13 +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 D3CF821C02F for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:43:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiocik.lan (unknown [81.219.86.66]) (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 A957833DB88; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:43:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:43:44 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: dilfridge@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting EAPI 5 *use.stable.mask to work in gx86? Message-ID: <20121213214344.70c37384@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <201212132133.57417.dilfridge@gentoo.org> References: <20121210222717.6424ef66@pomiocik.lan> <20121212103231.546140e2@pomiocik.lan> <50C85CB9.9040603@gentoo.org> <201212132133.57417.dilfridge@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_/3kPTv7bre42tDhhF+jHYKJi"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 4519972b-ae2b-41ab-b8ef-07a26d8923a5 X-Archives-Hash: bf65bd38d62b09028b3beaf95bfd7b72 --Sig_/3kPTv7bre42tDhhF+jHYKJi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:33:50 +0100 "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > 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 requ= ire > > > EAPI=3D5 at all and probably make arch testing a bit easier for a few > > > people. > >=20 > > Sounds good to me. >=20 > Except that it completely breaks stabilization procedures, since packages= are=20 > then not only tested with a larger range of useflags, but with an entirel= y=20 > different profile. Not such a great idea.=20 >=20 > The whole point of the stable masking was to keep the changes minimal whe= n=20 > going from a "testing" to a "stable" state - by only restricting the use = flag=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 a= nd=20 > arch teams for stabilization. Well, it's all a question of decisions, I believe. If we make sure that the new 'unstable' profiles differ from the 'stable' ones only by additional masked/unmasked USE flags, I don't think it'd be an issue. > 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 ins= ide=20 > the new profiles. Not in the base profile or in the main profile director= y,=20 > which still follows the old EAPI. In the sense of easy handling, noone wi= ll=20 > probably want to edit=20 > profiles/highly_unstable/next_version/package.stable.mask.=20 >=20 > I have basically given up that this "feature" will ever become usef= ul=20 > for the main tree. Long live inertia. I'm thinking of making all the current profiles 'testing'. As in, we mask the 'unstable' flags in base profile completely. The new profiles will just add a common 'testing' profile which would unmask those flags. ~arch users could still use the regular profiles but would have to switch if they wanted the additional flags automatically unmasked. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/3kPTv7bre42tDhhF+jHYKJi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iJwEAQEIAAYFAlDKPgEACgkQfXuS5UK5QB3esgP/cUyHCzvEfqHEmoajdfHUmR4r 47qmS12Lgqt4vWBSp+TPiSjqa+0HJmrvyzKOGspWS5nACJpM1iVGNy7KYcXT8fZK jcJy/un916bm7T/vkkNAn+ebUFTqK9UFkTlrTvFsfBFZLrvv772IJBBlBrtmOmP9 LAJVPXxl5vXwLs8UZME= =UeZy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/3kPTv7bre42tDhhF+jHYKJi--