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 99EA81381FB for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 19:06:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 71610E07DD; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 19:05:33 +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 7B0E5E07D7 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 19:03:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiocik.lan (77-255-23-137.adsl.inetia.pl [77.255.23.137]) (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 6487933D856; Fri, 28 Dec 2012 19:03:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 20:03:49 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: dilfridge@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08 Message-ID: <20121228200349.55fac9f3@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <1668942.0IxWDgbapX@porto> References: <1356540147.20663.14.camel@localhost> <8276365.58ylrykFZO@porto> <20121228111923.6e1653e0@pomiocik.lan> <1668942.0IxWDgbapX@porto> 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_/hNhlYYMUcK0m07WSJLJEczs"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 8282c40c-8985-4f58-b865-0a4785832be0 X-Archives-Hash: 17c62479393babff97e3c8076777e190 --Sig_/hNhlYYMUcK0m07WSJLJEczs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 19:06:02 +0100 "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > Am Freitag, 28. Dezember 2012, 11:19:23 schrieb Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny: > >=20 > > I don't think we can really avoid having the current 'base' profile, > > and I don't think that we should even try doing that. As far as I can > > see, the idea would be to mask the flags completely in base profile, > > and unmask in *stable.mask files. Do I get it correctly? >=20 > [see also attached modified graphs] >=20 > The idea would be *for the transition period*: have an additional directo= ry=20 > base5, which contains eapi=3D5, the stable mask files and nothing else. >=20 > After the transition period, these files are merged into the main profile= =20 > directory, the base5 directory is removed from inheritance and deleted.=20 >=20 > During the transition period, an old installation using deprecated 10.0=20 > profile will "not see the stable mask files", which means the additional= =20 > useflag restrictions are just not enforced. Repoman will check against no= n- > deprecated profiles, which means it uses the 13.0 path. Well, I guess it's acceptable. I think it's fine assuming that stable users don't enable flags relevant to packages not being stable. > [Given the position in the depgraph, maybe a different name instead of ba= se5=20 > would make sense. I just wanted to stick to the description from the last= e- > mail.] I agree. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/hNhlYYMUcK0m07WSJLJEczs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iJwEAQEIAAYFAlDd7RoACgkQfXuS5UK5QB3QYgP/WggqbnkwMAP6qR3biotlFfW6 4IXe9oXCV7uaEXKFyi+87BAdE4NqgD84eKHgXE127iyPgi3HKUaAsNHzBF1yXKrA IE9ecNNpAHkljWlS/BFu+dTSxBCWkW7uHwnGHH8T3fr3WWyvlXH4JIgwl/z5EGKQ HfjXRjxNEai93hWYrzk= =OlWu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/hNhlYYMUcK0m07WSJLJEczs--