On 12/27/2012 05:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > 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.
So, adding new profiles and deprecating the old ones is considered to "break the update path for older versions"? I don't a problem with deprecating profiles and forcing users to switch. The only manual labor involved could be `emerge -1 portage && eselect profile set <target>`. > 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. This was my plan all along, and seems perfectly reasonable to me. -- Thanks, Zac
