| 1 |
Am Donnerstag, 23. März 2017, 10:51:01 CET schrieb Alexis Ballier: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:41:39 +0100 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Am Dienstag, 21. März 2017, 11:24:39 CET schrieb Andreas K. Huettel: |
| 6 |
> > > So what's so special about your packages that you *need* a hack as |
| 7 |
> > > ugly as eblits? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > No response. Seems like there are no real arguments for eblits. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I guess the argument is not for or against eblit but rather about "when |
| 12 |
> you want to change something you don't maintain, you have to justify it |
| 13 |
> properly" |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
No, the argument is about "we want to clean up the tree from abusive hacks". |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
This is the same irrationality that still insisted on EAPI=0 when the entire |
| 18 |
profile tree was already requiring EAPI=5 support. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Andreas K. Hüttel |
| 22 |
dilfridge@g.o |
| 23 |
Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice) |
Archives