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