Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting: Tuesday 14 August 2012, 19:00 UTC

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1638 bytes --]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:02:04 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:55:47 -0700
> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > It seems like there's some confusion here. Approving a new EAPI and
> > deciding to use a new EAPI in a given profile are two entirely
> > different things. If we want to us a new EAPI in a profile, we just
> > have to deploy it such that users are only exposed to that profile
> > when they consciously running `eselect profile` (and they can always
> > revert back to the previous profile if it turns out that their
> > installed package manager doesn't support the new profile).
> 
> There's still the issue that we haven't decided what [use] deps do
> when they show up in profile files. We were sticking at 1 until we
> worked that out.

Ah, about that. It will be useful if [use] deps in package.mask worked
unlike in package.use.mask, thus giving us a tool to temporarily mask
packages which are broken only with given flags.

For example, likely it was potentially useful to do something like:

    # something support with intel broken in this version
    =media-libs/mesa-N.N.N[someflag,video_cards_intel,!video_cards_radeon,!video_cards_nvidia]

With meaning: mask mesa-N.N.N if 'someflag' and 'video_cards_intel' are
enabled, and 'video_cards_radeon' an 'video_cards_nvidia' are disabled.

This will make lives easier both for devs (who wouldn't have to
work-around this) and users (for those who will benefit from new mesa,
and those who will not upgrade and break their systems).

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]