| 1 |
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Steven J |
| 2 |
Long<slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> I look forward to seeing Funtoo's creation of EAPI funtoo-2. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
> Well judging by your EAPI-2, I'd prefer it. Apart from USE-deps, there's |
| 8 |
> been no discussion apart from under your supervision on bugzie. |
| 9 |
> nonfatal? (or w/e it's called.) Who came up with that idea, and why did you |
| 10 |
> ignore the --or-die option that's already been discussed? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> If you want exceptions, try C++ (better than you're currently doing.) This |
| 13 |
> is shellscript. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I'd like to moot to the Council that we hold off on EAPI-2 profiles, and go |
| 16 |
> with EAPI-1 plus USE-deps and BASH-3.2_p17 (honestly, you thought 4 was |
| 17 |
> ready?!) til we get this mess sorted. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
How about we just ignore ciaranm because he's got no valid complaints |
| 21 |
or objections to this particular portage behavior as shown in |
| 22 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273261#c28. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Relevant portion excerpted here for your convenience: |
| 25 |
"Additionally, in |
| 26 |
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/pym/portage.py?rev=3495&view=markup |
| 27 |
(hint: look for "recursive=1") and |
| 28 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133740, with both predating the |
| 29 |
initial RFC for PMS sent to gentoo-dev mailing list, this behavior is |
| 30 |
discussed and shown to be a design feature, not a flaw or lack of QA |
| 31 |
in portage. This proves with certainty that it is PMS and the views of |
| 32 |
the reporter of this bug that are flawed, and not the behavior of |
| 33 |
portage." |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Problem solved. |
Archives