On 11/15/2010 10:23 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > 2010-11-03 06:18:01 Zac Medico napisał(a): >> When you need to use a new EAPI, why not just create a sub-profile that >> uses the existing 'eapi' file support? For example, you could create >> 10.1 profiles that inherit from the 10.0 profiles, and put anything >> requiring the new EAPI in the 10.1 sub-profiles. > > Your suggestion would require that hundreds of packages are manually masked > in base profile > and unmasked in this new subprofile. > E.g. it is planned that dev-python/setuptools will have > "python_abis_2.5-jython" USE flag. > This flag should be masked on architectures, which don't support Java/Jython. > use.mask and > package.use.mask files in base profile don't support such a USE flag, so > dev-python/setuptools > and all its (at least indirect) reverse dependencies would have to be masked > in base profile.
Why would they have to be masked, just to make repoman happy? Alternatively, we could simply deprecate the older profile and remove it from profiles.desc so that repoman doesn't check it anymore. It's desirable to remove old profiles from profiles.desc anyway, since we don't want them to slow down repoman. As for older package managers, the ebuilds with newer EAPIs are already automatically masked, so repoman is the only reason I can imagine that you'd want to mask them. > If a future EAPI allows a new character in package names, then my suggestion > would allow to > handle such packages. > -- Thanks, Zac
