On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 10:33:32 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:54:56 +0530 > Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbh...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > I don't see any features in EAPI 3 and 4 that are useful for the > > profiles. However, a bump to EAPI 2 (or at least 1) would be > > *extremely* beneficial, and cause much less chaos. > > > > Speaking with my GNOME hat, it will be *extremely* useful for > > slot-masking GNOME packages. > > If that route is taken, I'd recommend 1 rather than 2, for the simple > reason that if 2 is introduced to profiles, we need to have a very > careful discussion about the meanings of use dependencies in profile > files. > > For example, people might think they can start masking cat/pkg[flag]. > Is this a replacement for package.use.mask or does it mean something > else? I have a sneaking suspicion that if there's not a policy saying > "no use deps in profiles" then people will start trying to use them > for all kinds of horrible hacks that would be better being fixed > properly. Do you consider masking USE flags in repositories a 'horrible hack'? Because that's the use I see for newer-EAPI profile. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
