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 CA7091381FB for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 21:02:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F09D21C2A2 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 21:02:07 +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 2320521C273; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:41:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.26.5] (ip98-164-195-43.oc.oc.cox.net [98.164.195.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0074133C3B4; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:41:09 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50DCB264.4050403@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:41:08 -0800 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org, =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= , chainsaw@gentoo.org, gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08 References: <1356540147.20663.14.camel@localhost> <20121227143738.4d5ce2dd@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <20121227143738.4d5ce2dd@pomiocik.lan> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 8cb08f02-30e0-415c-8d45-87b71fd4ac66 X-Archives-Hash: d481096f5803629c791e3870029b811c On 12/27/2012 05:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > EAPI 5 provides use.stable.mask files to solve this but those files > require profiles to be EAPI 5. Therefore, in order to be able to use it > we would have to actually break the update path for older portage > versions completely. So, adding new profiles and deprecating the old ones is considered to "break the update path for older versions"? I don't a problem with deprecating profiles and forcing users to switch. The only manual labor involved could be `emerge -1 portage && eselect profile set `. > I have tried to raise the topic on the mailing list [1] but it mostly > resulted in some people agreeing that it is an issue that should be > addressed but no real ideas. > > I have come up with three possible solutions myself. Long story short: > > a) adding new profiles which will require EAPI=5 and requiring all > users to migrate to them after upgrading portage. Using new > use.stable.mask files in those profiles. This was my plan all along, and seems perfectly reasonable to me. -- Thanks, Zac