1 |
On czw, 2017-03-23 at 19:52 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:53:25 +0100 |
3 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > On czw, 2017-03-23 at 10:51 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
6 |
> > > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:41:39 +0100 |
7 |
> > > "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
8 |
> > > |
9 |
> > > > Am Dienstag, 21. März 2017, 11:24:39 CET schrieb Andreas K. |
10 |
> > > > Huettel: |
11 |
> > > > > |
12 |
> > > > > So what's so special about your packages that you *need* a hack |
13 |
> > > > > as ugly as eblits? |
14 |
> > > > > |
15 |
> > > > |
16 |
> > > > No response. Seems like there are no real arguments for eblits. |
17 |
> > > > |
18 |
> > > |
19 |
> > > I guess the argument is not for or against eblit but rather about |
20 |
> > > "when you want to change something you don't maintain, you have to |
21 |
> > > justify it properly" |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > Do you think really think it's fine for maintainer to: |
24 |
> > |
25 |
> > 1. go against best practices, principle of least surprise and |
26 |
> > basically make it harder for anyone else to touch the ebuild (-> aim |
27 |
> > for bus factor of 1 and/or making himself indispensable)? |
28 |
> |
29 |
> This is very (too) subjective. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> > 2. enforce package managers to exhibit non-PMS behavior by making core |
32 |
> > system packages rely on it? Not to mention minor incompatibilities |
33 |
> > causing silent breakage. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> What, exactly, is non-PMS ? The access rule has been added after last |
36 |
> EAPI was approved it seems. |
37 |
|
38 |
It would be really appreciated if you at least conducted proper research |
39 |
before starting to troll. As Ulrich already explained in this thread |
40 |
(which I presume you have read), the rule was *laxed*. According to |
41 |
the previous rule, eblits could not work at all since FILESDIR was |
42 |
*never* allowed in global scope. |
43 |
|
44 |
-- |
45 |
Best regards, |
46 |
Michał Górny |