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