| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 16:29 -0600, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> If you use the approach I've laid out (yes, not new, I laid it out in |
| 3 |
> 24439) you wouldn't have to dick around with deprecating a version, |
| 4 |
> nor essentially mandating what version is default. You'd leave the |
| 5 |
> total control over what versions the user wants to deal with in the |
| 6 |
> hands of the _users_, and what versions the package supports would |
| 7 |
> be represented properly/clearly in the IUSE. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I know the proposed system obviously and it's still flawed in that |
| 10 |
really doesn't deal with USE flag versioning in a consistent, |
| 11 |
predictable way. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> So far... I've not really heard a good reason aside from "it's in |
| 14 |
> place, we'll just deprecate gtk v1 instead of clean it up" for why |
| 15 |
> this cannot be corrected _now_, or really in the past. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
That is all the reason needed here. I'm no biggie on the current |
| 18 |
situation (altough if people actually read the USE flag descriptions it |
| 19 |
wouldn't be half the issue), but interchanging to be deprecated |
| 20 |
behaviour with something just as bad is a regression. I'll post more on |
| 21 |
some changes that I'd like to see implemented for this later. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
And the issue never has been about changing a few occurances in the |
| 24 |
tree. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
- foser |
Archives