| 1 |
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:49:55 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:41:56 +0300 |
| 3 |
> Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:14:23 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > Dnia 22 lipca 2016 13:00:42 CEST, Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 7 |
> > > >On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:12:12 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 8 |
> > [...] |
| 9 |
> > > >> Few important QA notes: |
| 10 |
> > > >> |
| 11 |
> > > >> 1. < is lexicographical comparison, so e.g. 1.6.2.2 < 1.6.18.2 gives |
| 12 |
> > > >> false, |
| 13 |
> > > > |
| 14 |
> > > >Thanks, fixed. |
| 15 |
> > > > |
| 16 |
> > > >> 2. REPLACING_VERSIONS can have more than one value, |
| 17 |
> > > > |
| 18 |
> > > >While it can indeed, I see no way for this to happen if package |
| 19 |
> > > >hasn't and never had multiple slots. |
| 20 |
> > > |
| 21 |
> > > Wrong. PMS specifically requests you to account for such a possibility. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > Common sence must prevail over formal approaches. While PMS is |
| 24 |
> > great, it is not perfect in all possible aspects, and this one is |
| 25 |
> > one of them. |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> > I see no point in trashing ebuilds with dead code that will never |
| 28 |
> > be used. Though if there will be a PMS or eclass function with |
| 29 |
> > "proper" implementation, I don't mind, since extra code will be |
| 30 |
> > moved from ebuild elsewhere. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> So are you officially refusing to follow the PMS based on your idea of |
| 33 |
> 'common sense' and ignoring the specific reasons it was written like |
| 34 |
> that? I should put my QA hat on, and request official action upon your |
| 35 |
> refusal. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
No, but I do ignore threats, at least for the time being. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Best regards, |
| 40 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives