On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:33:50 +0100
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfri...@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2012, 11:30:17 schrieb Zac Medico:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Sounds good to me.
> 
> Except that it completely breaks stabilization procedures, since packages are 
> then not only tested with a larger range of useflags, but with an entirely 
> different profile. Not such a great idea. 
> 
> The whole point of the stable masking was to keep the changes minimal when 
> going from a "testing" to a "stable" state - by only restricting the use flag 
> choices, and nothing else. This means most of the testing done with ~arch 
> packages is still valid and provides meaningful feedback to maintainers and 
> arch teams for stabilization.

Well, it's all a question of decisions, I believe. If we make sure that
the new 'unstable' profiles differ from the 'stable' ones only by
additional masked/unmasked USE flags, I don't think it'd be an issue.

> In general, using a separate set of profiles, however, whill not help you 
> enabling the stable mask files, since these will then only be allowed inside 
> the new profiles. Not in the base profile or in the main profile directory, 
> which still follows the old EAPI. In the sense of easy handling, noone will 
> probably want to edit 
> profiles/highly_unstable/next_version/package.stable.mask. 
> 
> <rant>I have basically given up that this "feature" will ever become useful 
> for the main tree. Long live inertia.</rant>

I'm thinking of making all the current profiles 'testing'. As in, we
mask the 'unstable' flags in base profile completely.

The new profiles will just add a common 'testing' profile which would
unmask those flags. ~arch users could still use the regular profiles
but would have to switch if they wanted the additional flags
automatically unmasked.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to