https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40363
--- Comment #2 from Carter Young ecyoung@grandecom.net --- I totally understand the concept of staging.
Gentoo's documentation at: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Wine
states: staging Apply Wine-Staging patches for advanced feature support that haven't made it into upstream Wine yet For versions before wine-1.8, this patchset is unofficial.
My Available Wine Versions: [I] app-emulation/wine Available versions: 1.6.2^t (~)1.6.2-r1^t (~)1.7.3-r1^t (~)1.7.4-r1^t (~)1.7.8-r1^t (~)1.7.9-r1^t (~)1.7.10-r1^t (~)1.7.11-r1^t (~)1.7.12-r1^t (~)1.7.13-r1^t (~)1.7.14-r1^t (~)1.7.15-r1^t (~)1.7.16-r1^t (~)1.7.17-r1^t (~)1.7.18-r1^t (~)1.7.19-r2^t (~)1.7.20-r1^t (~)1.7.21-r1^t (~)1.7.22-r1^t (~)1.7.28-r1^t (~)1.7.29-r1^t (~)1.7.33-r1^t (~)1.7.34^t (~)1.7.35^t (~)1.7.36^t (~)1.7.37^t (~)1.7.38-r1^t (~)1.7.39-r1^t (~)1.7.40-r1^t (~)1.7.41^t (~)1.7.42^t (~)1.7.43^t (~)1.7.44^t (~)1.7.45^t (~)1.7.46^t (~)1.7.47^t (~)1.7.50^t (~)1.7.51^t (~)1.7.52^t (~)1.7.53^t (~)1.7.54-r1^t (~)1.7.55^t (~)1.8^t (~)1.9.4^t (~)1.9.5^t **9999^t
---------------------------------------------------------
The USE Case here is that I don't have what WineHQ considers to be a stable version in my tree because of a USE Flag argument?? I can't report bugs against 1.6.2 here anymore, because my bug would be closed after being told to upgrade, and I'm surely not submitting a bug here against the bleeding edge testing version, when I have 3 minor version changes in between.
Why tell our maintainer that he has access to the staging patchset, and then not supply one? The issue here is that once a USE Flag is created in a certain package it's expected to be backwards compatible. You can't enable the option in 1.8, and then disable the option in 1.8.1. For that matter you can't enable it in 1.8 and expect it to work in 1.6.2, hence the wording above. If the stable versions aren't meant to include the staging patchset, then you and our package maintainer need to decide how to remove the staging USE Flag from all versions. This is complicated by the fact that we can use Stable and Unstable versions. The intent here was that the unstable versions contain the staging USE Flag. Using your logic, we would need to mask the staging Flag for each version marked stable, using package.use.stable.mask?
The intent of a mask in Gentoo implies that a package isn't completely stable, i.e our maintainer is having to be a hardass to quell the small riot we'd have among our userbase that understands cascaded masking.
I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS has been going on over a year or more. I'm ashamed to say that I missed out on a 1.7.x stable branch because of this same argument