On 12/12/2012 01:32 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:44:25 -0800 > Zac Medico <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 12/11/2012 01:45 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:35:07 -0800 >>> Zac Medico <[email protected]> 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.
Sounds good to me. -- Thanks, Zac
