On 13 December 2012 21:46, Zac Medico <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/13/2012 12:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:33:50 +0100 >> "Andreas K. Huettel" <[email protected]> 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. > > Yeah, should be fine.
How are you engoing to ensure that? And how are you going to monitor them so they will not get out-of-sync in future? We have plenty of examples of stale profile entries all over the profiles/arch directory so I think that the stable *use.stable.mask will also end up unmaintained in the near future. -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
