From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-47729-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>) id 1R5KtW-0005BC-KW for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:11:06 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B77E21C2F5; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:10:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gy0-f181.google.com (mail-gy0-f181.google.com [209.85.160.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A76921C1A0 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:10:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gyd10 with SMTP id 10so5293437gyd.40 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 10:10:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=RHTsh7oH3R4jKsiIJDiviTFD4NAajl6GVMlAuAd3Gs0=; b=GKMNTmnlfFihfX6Pf6cJBpP7dltA3yjFkbJ6azVFW+IlOfDhkW57vpUY0rnL0ybK/8 nfi6JWD6VjkXnG2bNig+Nb+1nJma8uXcs02eoARqM2lwyWizQxIneMn+HC9ak2bnmC1Q WRoS1RDWK65FnwnTqGtBdTitHnjsd91ifgqBI= Received: by 10.150.203.11 with SMTP id a11mr1426260ybg.202.1316365825107; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 10:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: nirbheek.chauhan@gmail.com Received: by 10.151.79.13 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 10:10:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E75FE32.8020306@gentoo.org> References: <4E64C7BB.907@gentoo.org> <201109160122.00747.Arfrever.FTA@gmail.com> <20110915235444.GB31364@beast> <201109160220.27814.Arfrever@gentoo.org> <4E73BA52.3000501@gentoo.org> <20110918034735.GA4525@comet.mayo.edu> <4E758121.8020002@gentoo.org> <CADqQcK5T_S5FXYzQj2m0a-1tqTc9DyLEPGeeF0Xjo3UEqPEc5A@mail.gmail.com> <20110918103332.47c459a6@googlemail.com> <4E75FE32.8020306@gentoo.org> From: Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 22:40:05 +0530 X-Google-Sender-Auth: UI04XZ8XYNTJcq0dFIMX3pWmwPM Message-ID: <CADqQcK7MB2Gw6rgEj=p1kAw5490n4qCppOhDs4nMNYWAPzAyOA@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Fwd: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for items for September 13 council meeting To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: d72b3081c1504b76137d29b60a938e8e On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote: > As we're talking about updating profiles EAPI, what do we need to get > to be able to mask use flags for the stable tree, but not the testing > tree? What's wrong with versioned masking of use-flags? The fact that they have to be constantly maintained is actually a good thing since it means that people will keep revisiting the mask with every STABLEREQ, and it won't get outdated and forgotten. > Also, should we get back to the discussion of decoupling > keywords from ebuilds and move them to profiles? > What's the use-case for this? What is the new proposed format to store the keywords? -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team