On 12/13/2012 12:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:33:50 +0100 > "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> 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. > > Well, it's all a question of decisions, I believe. If we make sure that > the new 'unstable' profiles differ from the 'stable' ones only by > additional masked/unmasked USE flags, I don't think it'd be an issue.
Yeah, should be fine. >> 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> > > I'm thinking of making all the current profiles 'testing'. As in, we > mask the 'unstable' flags in base profile completely. > > The new profiles will just add a common 'testing' profile which would > unmask those flags. ~arch users could still use the regular profiles > but would have to switch if they wanted the additional flags > automatically unmasked. That makes sense. The currently supported profile types for profiles.desc are 'stable', 'dev', and 'exp'. By default, repoman only checks the 'stable' ones. If you want your new 'testing' profiles to be checked by default, we could add a new category for them. -- Thanks, Zac
