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 2B0DF1381F3 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:51:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 75BF921C0C6; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:51:42 +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 1AE4921C0C8 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:50:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 521D833DCC9 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:50:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.395 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.395 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-1.369, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.024, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KIwT_q8_CgjA for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:50:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2790B33DCCC for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:50:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TjcDT-0000Ui-1f for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:50:43 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:50:43 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:50:43 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Getting EAPI 5 *use.stable.mask to work in gx86? Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:50:18 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: 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> <20121214155908.1fd79159@pomiocik.lan> <20121214161505.56c76c91@pomiocik.lan> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.140 (Chocolate Salty Balls; GIT e9e5ddf /usr/src/portage/src/egit-src/pan2) X-Archives-Salt: 3e4d5a55-ed11-4ffc-aa7a-da7350da273e X-Archives-Hash: 8db88d163d17a614cff69761796ff82e Michał Górny posted on Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:15:05 +0100 as excerpted: > On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:08:24 +0000 Markos Chandras > wrote: > >> > I'd like to point out that my proposal implies that the *current* >> > arches become the stable arches, and new sub-arches would be the >> > testing ones. Therefore, everyone will be allowed to touch like >> > everyone is allowed to touch the *stable* profiles today. >> > >> > In other words, we mask python_targets_pypy* in the base profiles, >> > and unmask them in the testing sub-profiles for amd64 & x86. >> >> I fear that the stable and testing profiles will diverge way too much >> as time passes. But if you feel that maintainers and herds will be able >> to keep the 'diff' between them as minimum as possible, then I have no >> objections. > > Well, my hope is that we will be able to do it mostly via a common > 'testing' profile (or per-arch testing profiles) which will be parents > to other sub-profiles. Yes. Divergence over time is a worry, but we've had cascading profiles for quite some time now, so in theory, all that would be needed here is a a set of cascading "testing" profiles that simply inherit the stable profiles. Then the testing profiles can simply inherit the stable profiles, with the only difference being the new EAPI-5 files in the testing profiles (and perhaps eventually the deprecation and in a year or two the final removal of the old profiles, with everything from them then moved to the new ones). As long as that's KEPT the only difference... -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman