On 11/28/2010 12:07 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2010-11-28 20:59:05 Zac Medico napisał(a):
>> It seems like you're trying to bypass an important function of repoman
>> though. The idea is that repoman is supposed to protect users from
>> experiencing unsatisfiable dependencies of this sort, and use.mask
>> accomplishes that.
>
> If "python_abis_2.7", "python_abis_3.1" and "python_abis_3.2" USE flags are
> masked using use.mask
> on given architectures until Python 2.7, 3.1 and 3.2 are stabilized on these
> architectures, then
> majority of reverse dependencies of Python wouldn't be tested with new
> versions of Python.
>
> Example {,R}DEPEND:
> python_abis_2.4? ( dev-lang/python:2.4 )
> python_abis_2.5? ( dev-lang/python:2.5 )
> python_abis_2.6? ( dev-lang/python:2.6 )
> python_abis_2.7? ( dev-lang/python:2.7 )
> python_abis_3.0? ( dev-lang/python:3.0 )
> python_abis_3.1? ( dev-lang/python:3.1 )
> python_abis_3.2? ( dev-lang/python:3.2 )
> python_abis_2.5-jython? ( dev-java/jython:2.5 )
It seems like the problem here is that we don't have separate profiles
for stable and unstable keywords. The obvious solution would be to have
separate profiles, mask the flags in the stable profiles, and unmask the
flags in the unstable profiles. That way, repoman would continue to
protect stable profile users from unsatisfiable dependencies, without
unnecessarily masking those choices from unstable profile users.
--
Thanks,
Zac
