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. In general, using a separate set of profiles, however, whill not help you enabling the stable mask files, since these will then only be allowed inside the new profiles. Not in the base profile or in the main profile directory, which still follows the old EAPI. In the sense of easy handling, noone will probably want to edit profiles/highly_unstable/next_version/package.stable.mask. <rant>I have basically given up that this "feature" will ever become useful for the main tree. Long live inertia.</rant> -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
