-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:20:34 +0000 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvice...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > For example, people might think they can start masking > > cat/pkg[flag]. Is this a replacement for package.use.mask or does > > it mean something else? I have a sneaking suspicion that if there's > > not a policy saying "no use deps in profiles" then people will > > start trying to use them for all kinds of horrible hacks that would > > be better being fixed properly. > > What other meanings could it have? What would be the problem with > moving the package use flag masks from package.use.mask to > package.mask?
Well, the behaviour is likely going to be different. Unless a package manager adds in special behaviour to cover this, use dependencies in package.mask will prevent an upgrade whereas package.use.mask allows the upgrade but disables the flag. I think that example illustrates perfectly why we don't want to just blindly enable EAPI 2 in profiles. > 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? Every time this has come up, the conclusion has been "it's a horrible idea from a QA perspective, since it would mean that testing something in ~arch would be different to testing it in arch". > Also, should we get back to the discussion of decoupling > keywords from ebuilds and move them to profiles? So far as I'm aware, "not using CVS" is a prerequisite for this. - -- Ciaran McCreesh -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk52FT0ACgkQ96zL6DUtXhHrKACfRYXquFwMl3quPb7vmUwoSsO5 FFsAnjrYE9kJRMBoInAY1cWe6XiyAJ4m =TQGA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
