| 1 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:55:45 +0200, Branko Badrljica |
| 2 |
<brankob@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Main question is NOT whether it works for you, but whether it will break |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> stuff on significant percent of other users. |
| 7 |
> It broke on my machine, for example, and it was quite disconcerting, |
| 8 |
> since it was at quite inconvenient moment and I had note get to any |
| 9 |
> shred of documentation about ANY kind of substantial behaviour change of |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> new openrc... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
This is an unreasonable expectation for ~arch. Matthias tested it himself, |
| 14 |
had another person test it and then had a number of people say that there |
| 15 |
were no problems for them on this thread alone. There was no behavior |
| 16 |
change according to upstream, which suggested the method that Matthias took |
| 17 |
with USE=oldnet (MKOLDNET?). I respect that every system might be |
| 18 |
different, did you file a bug with relevant info so that the docs can get |
| 19 |
updated for the people in your situation? We can't document information if |
| 20 |
people don't help. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I guess what I am trying to say, is give Matthias a break here. He did |
| 23 |
more testing than most of us can do before we bump packages in ~arch. |
| 24 |
Progress will not be made if packages live in p.mask, this is proven with |
| 25 |
libtool-2, gcc, etc. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-Jeremy |
Archives