-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 10/12/12 04:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > I think we're mostly aware what the use and benefits of the > *use.stable.mask files are. > > They would be at least really useful in Python ebuilds, where we > have to either: > > a) forcedly stabilize a particular Python implementation (like > pypy), > > b) don't support it all, > > c) or just keep two package revisions around, one with 'stable' > Python implementations for stabilization and the other with all > implementations for testing users. > > > Therefore, having *use.stable.mask would be at least helpful to us. > But as far as I can see, the spec says we can use it only in > profile dirs with EAPI 5... > > So far, I doubt anyone would want us to migrate our major profiles > to a newer EAPI, like EAPI 4, not to mention fresh 5. And of > course, that wouldn't follow our migration path practices. > > > Therefore, I see the following solutions: > > 1) duplicate most of the major profiles. Make an EAPI 5-enabled > wrapper profiles which will provide the *use.stable.mask files. > Require users to migrate to those profiles after getting an EAPI 5 > capable package manager (how?). Possibly mask the relevant flags > completely in other profiles. > > > 2) change the rules. Make *use.stable.mask files not require EAPI > 5 profile dirs but apply only to EAPI 5 packages. The outcome is > similar -- package managers without the feature ignore the ebuilds. > If they have EAPI 5, they should be able to handle stable unmasking > as well. > > Of course, it all falls apart because of package manager > strictness. We may want to change that retroactively and quickly > release updated package managers before the EAPI 5 support is > spread wider (assuming some transitional period before we will > start using the files), or defer it into EAPI 6. > > > Either way, I believe that *use.stable.mask would be very helpful > if we were able to use it. What are your thoughts? >
I wonder how (2) would really differ from the current situation -- ie, if there's a use.stable.mask file in a profiles dir, and portage is too old to support it, doesn't it just get ignored? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlDGk/4ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBkogEAsqOBZBa1n63+dkd/mz7XzFzy XHoshXhY5kOMTMKz7NgBAI9JODGAp9VGlAZg2w7lOoAFTmvgQyElWY0AA/9Sn6h7 =rHGA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
