On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:42:27 +0000 "Tony \"Chainsaw\" Vroon" <chain...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> In less than two weeks, on Tuesday January the 8th, the council will meet > again. > Now is the time to prepare & raise items that you feel should be put to a > vote. > > Please reply to this e-mail with any suggested agenda items. Even if you have > raised > the issue on a mailing list before, please repeat it now to avoid it being > missed. I'd like the Council to raise the topic of using stable USE masks in gx86 tree. The issue is that Python packages have USE-conditional (PYTHON_TARGETS) dependencies upon new, unstable Python versions. Therefore, if a particular package is to be stabilized, the relevant USE flags have to be masked (or removed) in order to fulfill the dependencies on a stable system. Currently we're resolving this through using two revisions for a package, one with the relevant flags removed (going stable) and a newer one with all flags enabled. However, this is very inconvenient for us. EAPI 5 provides use.stable.mask files to solve this but those files require profiles to be EAPI 5. Therefore, in order to be able to use it we would have to actually break the update path for older portage versions completely. I have tried to raise the topic on the mailing list [1] but it mostly resulted in some people agreeing that it is an issue that should be addressed but no real ideas. I have come up with three possible solutions myself. Long story short: a) adding new profiles which will require EAPI=5 and requiring all users to migrate to them after upgrading portage. Using new use.stable.mask files in those profiles. b) adding new profiles (with current EAPIs) and requesting our unstable users to migrate to them. Masking the relevant USE flags globally and unmasking in those profiles. c) 'fixing' the use.stable.mask feature and wording it in such a way that it would apply to EAPI 5 (or 6) packages independently of profiles EAPI. I have also opened bug 447090 [2] in order to try to get some feedback on b) but nobody bothered to answer. [1]:http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/81877 [2]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=447090 -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
