List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:43:38 +0200
Hans de Graaff <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> That leaves the question what to do with the approach for EAPI=2,3.
> I'd rather not risk breaking ebuilds by removing this support just
> for a violation of PMS if there is no real problem exposed by it.
The 'invariant' restriction on S in PMS is, strictly speaking, stronger
than it has to be. However, working out exactly what set of weaker
rules would be ok proved to be too difficult -- historically, Portage
has had various different behaviours for global scope variables that
are assigned variable values. Thus, PMS is the way it is there because
we know for sure that if you follow those rules you're safe; if you
don't, you'll definitely cause problems for EAPI 4, and you may or may
not get away with it for earlier EAPIs.
It's a bit like assuming that it's ok to dereference a null pointer
and get a zero, since that's what one particular system does...