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 1C6B81381F3 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:30:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DDBA921C09B; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:30:35 +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 5E7DD21C09D for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:29:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiocik.lan (unknown [213.195.166.161]) (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 50E6733DC02; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:29:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:29:57 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: hwoarang@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting EAPI 5 *use.stable.mask to work in gx86? Message-ID: <20121214152957.24e41549@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <20121210222717.6424ef66@pomiocik.lan> <20121212103231.546140e2@pomiocik.lan> <50C85CB9.9040603@gentoo.org> <201212132133.57417.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <20121213214344.70c37384@pomiocik.lan> <50CA4CC6.5010800@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_/po.PSF6E8.rB7pp/_J6oLdo"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 099472a6-1029-4a03-9a1c-b39adc9416ab X-Archives-Hash: 6e94b627af989e2af4eacc49fbcbecd5 --Sig_/po.PSF6E8.rB7pp/_J6oLdo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:38:24 +0000 Markos Chandras wrote: > On 13 December 2012 21:46, Zac Medico wrote: > > On 12/13/2012 12:43 PM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > >> 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 re= quire > >>>>> EAPI=3D5 at all and probably make arch testing a bit easier for a f= ew > >>>>> people. > >>>> > >>>> Sounds good to me. > >>> > >>> Except that it completely breaks stabilization procedures, since pack= ages are > >>> then not only tested with a larger range of useflags, but with an ent= irely > >>> 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 maintaine= rs 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. >=20 > 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. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/po.PSF6E8.rB7pp/_J6oLdo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iJwEAQEIAAYFAlDLN+oACgkQfXuS5UK5QB2YowP5Af25BRK+yCMw0ms6LVHDmK8k popiuwEdsS5eds1e2nudsgxm9WCILXLceXeZgPgklRl+onwzIoEZ8aBma/0qxFES eT4Yh4+EPtoQJJgr6Xnn8QazrBR8gf4MrNE340hk9fBmiF6qmA2oavyy+i+MboI4 q8d+4N++uAnQMuQGgs4= =8A5w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/po.PSF6E8.rB7pp/_J6oLdo--