On 12/11/2012 01:45 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:35:07 -0800 > Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> 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. >> >> I think this is the obvious solution. You can make users migrate by >> adding "deprecated" files to the old profiles. > > To be honest, I don't see much benefit from it compared to not having > the *stable.use.mask files at all and just adding separate stable > profiles.
The main use case for *use.stable.mask that I'm aware of is that it's handy for masking flags to pass repoman checks. For example, sys-apps/portage could use it for the pypy1_9 flag. Otherwise, we have to mask that flag for a given portage version before we can add stable keywords. -- Thanks, Zac
