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

[Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 10/12/12 04:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I think we're mostly aware what the use and benefits of the
> *use.stable.mask files are.
> 
> They would be at least really useful in Python ebuilds, where we 
> have to either:
> 
> a) forcedly stabilize a particular Python implementation (like
> pypy),
> 
> b) don't support it all,
> 
> c) or just keep two package revisions around, one with 'stable'
> Python implementations for stabilization and the other with all 
> implementations for testing users.
> 
> 
> Therefore, having *use.stable.mask would be at least helpful to us.
> But as far as I can see, the spec says we can use it only in
> profile dirs with EAPI 5...
> 
> So far, I doubt anyone would want us to migrate our major profiles 
> to a newer EAPI, like EAPI 4, not to mention fresh 5. And of
> course, that wouldn't follow our migration path practices.
> 
> 
> Therefore, I see the following solutions:
> 
> 1) duplicate most of the major profiles. Make an EAPI 5-enabled
> wrapper profiles which will provide the *use.stable.mask files.
> Require users to migrate to those profiles after getting an EAPI 5
> capable package manager (how?). Possibly mask the relevant flags
> completely in other profiles.
> 
> 
> 2) change the rules. Make *use.stable.mask files not require EAPI
> 5 profile dirs but apply only to EAPI 5 packages. The outcome is
> similar -- package managers without the feature ignore the ebuilds.
> If they have EAPI 5, they should be able to handle stable unmasking
> as well.
> 
> Of course, it all falls apart because of package manager
> strictness. We may want to change that retroactively and quickly
> release updated package managers before the EAPI 5 support is
> spread wider (assuming some transitional period before we will
> start using the files), or defer it into EAPI 6.
> 
> 
> Either way, I believe that *use.stable.mask would be very helpful
> if we were able to use it. What are your thoughts?
> 

I wonder how (2) would really differ from the current situation -- ie,
if there's a use.stable.mask file in a profiles dir, and portage is
too old to support it, doesn't it just get ignored?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlDGk/4ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBkogEAsqOBZBa1n63+dkd/mz7XzFzy
XHoshXhY5kOMTMKz7NgBAI9JODGAp9VGlAZg2w7lOoAFTmvgQyElWY0AA/9Sn6h7
=rHGA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----