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

[Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org>]

On 13 December 2012 21:46, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 12:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:33:50 +0100
>> "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012, 11:30:17 schrieb Zac Medico:
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Except that it completely breaks stabilization procedures, since packages are
>>> then not only tested with a larger range of useflags, but with an entirely
>>> different profile. Not such a great idea.
>>>
>>> The whole point of the stable masking was to keep the changes minimal when
>>> going from a "testing" to a "stable" state - by only restricting the use flag
>>> choices, and nothing else. This means most of the testing done with ~arch
>>> packages is still valid and provides meaningful feedback to maintainers and
>>> arch teams for stabilization.
>>
>> Well, it's all a question of decisions, I believe. If we make sure that
>> the new 'unstable' profiles differ from the 'stable' ones only by
>> additional masked/unmasked USE flags, I don't think it'd be an issue.
>
> Yeah, should be fine.

How are you engoing to ensure that? And how are you going to monitor
them so they will not get out-of-sync in future? We have plenty of
examples of stale profile entries
all over the profiles/arch directory so I think that the stable
*use.stable.mask will also end up
unmaintained in the near future.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2