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

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2126 bytes --]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:38:24 +0000
Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 13 December 2012 21:46, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On 12/13/2012 12:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:33:50 +0100
> >> "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> 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 require
> >>>>> EAPI=5 at all and probably make arch testing a bit easier for a few
> >>>>> people.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sounds good to me.
> >>>
> >>> Except that it completely breaks stabilization procedures, since packages are
> >>> then not only tested with a larger range of useflags, but with an entirely
> >>> different profile. Not such a great idea.
> >>>
> >>> The whole point of the stable masking was to keep the changes minimal when
> >>> going from a "testing" to a "stable" state - by only restricting the use flag
> >>> choices, and nothing else. This means most of the testing done with ~arch
> >>> packages is still valid and provides meaningful feedback to maintainers and
> >>> 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.
> >
> > Yeah, should be fine.
> 
> How are you engoing to ensure that? And how are you going to monitor
> them so they will not get out-of-sync in future? We have plenty of
> examples of stale profile entries
> all over the profiles/arch directory so I think that the stable
> *use.stable.mask will also end up
> unmaintained in the near future.

What is your solution then? Keeping two revisions of most ebuilds so
that one could be stabilized? I don't see how that is more
maintainable, except for a few days who will easily stay out of it
and pretend that the issue doesn't exist.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

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