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

[Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org>]

On 12/12/2012 01:32 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:44:25 -0800
> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/11/2012 01:45 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:35:07 -0800
>>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> I think this is the obvious solution. You can make users migrate by
>>>> adding "deprecated" files to the old profiles.
>>>
>>> To be honest, I don't see much benefit from it compared to not having
>>> the *stable.use.mask files at all and just adding separate stable
>>> profiles.
>>
>> The main use case for *use.stable.mask that I'm aware of is that it's
>> handy for masking flags to pass repoman checks. For example,
>> sys-apps/portage could use it for the pypy1_9 flag. Otherwise, we have
>> to mask that flag for a given portage version before we can add stable
>> keywords.
> 
> 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.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac