| 1 |
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:05:45 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >>>>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 22:45:54 +0100 |
| 7 |
> > David Seifert <soap@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=586416 |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> > yep, that's about tracking access to the dir not to the variable |
| 12 |
> > itself |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Which is what is intended. As I have already explained twice, the rule |
| 15 |
> was loosened, in order to allow PATCHES assignment from FILESDIR in |
| 16 |
> global scope. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> And yes, this is a flaw in the council-approved EAPI 6. Mistakes |
| 19 |
> happen, and nobody noticed this one in the four weeks between posting |
| 20 |
> the EAPI 6 patches to gentoo-dev-announce for review [1] and their |
| 21 |
> approval by the council. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> So the alternatives are now to either enforce the old rules and forbid |
| 24 |
> any access to the FILESDIR *variable* in global scope, or to fix the |
| 25 |
> spec retroactively. I believe that the latter is the lesser evil here, |
| 26 |
> especially when package managers are already compliant with it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
You know I definitely agree with that. That's the additional |
| 30 |
restriction that accounting for the dir being absent isn't sufficient |
| 31 |
anymore which seems exaggerated to me. |
Archives