2010-11-15 19:32:28 Zac Medico napisał(a): > On 11/15/2010 10:23 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > > 2010-11-03 06:18:01 Zac Medico napisał(a): > >> When you need to use a new EAPI, why not just create a sub-profile that > >> uses the existing 'eapi' file support? For example, you could create > >> 10.1 profiles that inherit from the 10.0 profiles, and put anything > >> requiring the new EAPI in the 10.1 sub-profiles. > > > > Your suggestion would require that hundreds of packages are manually masked > > in base profile > > and unmasked in this new subprofile. > > E.g. it is planned that dev-python/setuptools will have > > "python_abis_2.5-jython" USE flag. > > This flag should be masked on architectures, which don't support > > Java/Jython. use.mask and > > package.use.mask files in base profile don't support such a USE flag, so > > dev-python/setuptools > > and all its (at least indirect) reverse dependencies would have to be > > masked in base profile. > > Why would they have to be masked, just to make repoman happy?
Yes. > Alternatively, we could simply deprecate the older profile and remove it > from profiles.desc so that repoman doesn't check it anymore. It's > desirable to remove old profiles from profiles.desc anyway, since we > don't want them to slow down repoman. The advantage of my suggestion is that it's fully backward compatible and doesn't require such changes in profiles.desc. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
