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 5A1281381F3 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:40:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 47132E06AF; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:40:26 +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 B7B8CE066E for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:39:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.20.10.2] (unknown [184.151.114.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9428333DC8C for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:39:53 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50CB3A3C.3050904@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:39:56 -0500 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.11) Gecko/20121208 Thunderbird/10.0.11 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Getting EAPI 5 *use.stable.mask to work in gx86? 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> <20121214152957.24e41549@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 57d1e371-21ad-42e9-8e90-1741c59559c4 X-Archives-Hash: eed6194ab2f46426dfde3438b97c2b23 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Remind me and the list again pls, why is this necessary rather than just using use.stable.mask and EAPI5 ebuilds in the regular profiles? This shouldn't break the tree with a non-EAPI5 portage as the files would just be ignored, as would the EAPI5 ebuilds..... For some core stuff (like portage) i could see this as being an issue but we aren't going to need to use.stable.mask flags on core packages are we? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlDLOjwACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAaugD/frwJ+kv9w49o1vPGQfLD0uQT nj2pVXrks/RYUZp+PL8A/1JYcKdzlAup+LIpY/uQzcGwqmtS3U34ZzM7vG+CRQ70 =nXpr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----