| 1 |
2012/5/22 Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 21 May 2012 18:16:25 Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Excuse me but the way this change was handled is a bit depressing. |
| 4 |
>> First, the ebuilds should have been fixed to inherit eutils and then |
| 5 |
>> remove eutils from autotools. Now, a bunch of ebuilds are broken out |
| 6 |
>> of nowhere. I don't believe this issue was that urgent in order to |
| 7 |
>> justify the significant breakage of portage tree. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> you're assuming the breakage was intentional. i also wouldn't really describe |
| 10 |
> it as "significant", but that's just quibbling over an insignificant aspect. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It's intentional not to revert the change, it's significant because it |
| 13 |
involve a number of significant packages like icu, vim and boost, some |
| 14 |
of them already marked stable (from a fast grep from the one mentioned |
| 15 |
in the previous posts). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> but what's done is done. fix the ebuilds and move on. |
| 18 |
> -mike |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
revert - fix the ebuilds - re-apply could work too, or since you're an |
| 21 |
old and respected developer fix them yourself, the change is easy and |
| 22 |
probably mantainers will understand. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Francesco R. |
Archives