On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:01:34 -0500 Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----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? Well, assuming the EAPI 5 support is applied at once, that portage version will ignore EAPI 5 packages as well, making the file therefore irrelevant. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
