2010-11-28 21:30:47 Zac Medico napisał(a):
> 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.I would prefer small number of additional files instead of huge proliferation of profiles. You also suggested using EAPI="4"-specific profiles instead of EAPI-versioned files, so eventually we might have about 4 times more profiles :) . -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
