On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:44:25 -0800 Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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. Yes, and having 'stable' and 'unstable' profiles will work just the same. Except for the fact that it will be a bit cleaner, not require EAPI=5 at all and probably make arch testing a bit easier for a few people. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
