| 1 |
On pon, 2017-04-10 at 17:33 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 22:43:18 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > The difference is in quality expectations. We did Python this way to |
| 6 |
> > make sure things will work, and all obvious breakage will immediately |
| 7 |
> > be caught. Your alternative does not provide for that. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Add a new Java version and recompiling packages with it, will also |
| 10 |
> immediately show breakage if any. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Except that the packages don't get recompiled unless you take manual |
| 13 |
action to recompile them. If you fail at this action, you may end up |
| 14 |
having broken software because the rebuild has not been complete. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> > > Anything in Gentoo that goes against the status quo gets heavy |
| 18 |
> > > resistance and thus Gentoo does not change. But continues on with |
| 19 |
> > > the status quo.... |
| 20 |
> > > |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > You are talking *nonsense*. The python-r1 was *against* status quo. We |
| 23 |
> > changed it. Now you want the old status quo back. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Regardless of new eclass, the TARGETS remain. Things did not change |
| 26 |
> from a user perspective. Recently packaging some ebuilds, the |
| 27 |
> COMPAT/VERSION does not seem to have changed. Despite what ever |
| 28 |
> changes to the eclass. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
TARGETS *have been added*. This is *the new way*. This *did change*. I |
| 32 |
have no clue why you pretend it's some ancient status quo when |
| 33 |
the remnants of old code were removed two months ago. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Best regards, |
| 38 |
Michał Górny |
Archives