On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 19:06:02 +0100 "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfri...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Am Freitag, 28. Dezember 2012, 11:19:23 schrieb Michał Górny: > > > > I don't think we can really avoid having the current 'base' profile, > > and I don't think that we should even try doing that. As far as I can > > see, the idea would be to mask the flags completely in base profile, > > and unmask in *stable.mask files. Do I get it correctly? > > [see also attached modified graphs] > > The idea would be *for the transition period*: have an additional directory > base5, which contains eapi=5, the stable mask files and nothing else. > > After the transition period, these files are merged into the main profile > directory, the base5 directory is removed from inheritance and deleted. > > During the transition period, an old installation using deprecated 10.0 > profile will "not see the stable mask files", which means the additional > useflag restrictions are just not enforced. Repoman will check against non- > deprecated profiles, which means it uses the 13.0 path. Well, I guess it's acceptable. I think it's fine assuming that stable users don't enable flags relevant to packages not being stable. > [Given the position in the depgraph, maybe a different name instead of base5 > would make sense. I just wanted to stick to the description from the last e- > mail.] I agree. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
