| 1 |
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:26:11 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The second step (ensuring that people no longer have kdebuild-1 |
| 4 |
> > packages installed) can be done with the next major Paludis release. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> So you also don't need it for the next major Paludis release. And |
| 7 |
> probably you also have better uses for your time than to do bug fixes |
| 8 |
> for kdebuild-1 in minor releases? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I need it there for as long as there is support for it in Paludis, |
| 11 |
which is two major releases away if we do this the responsible way (the |
| 12 |
first to issue warnings, the second to remove). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
And it's not about doing bug fixes. It's about making changes that |
| 15 |
affect multiple EAPIs, and ensuring that each of those EAPIs still |
| 16 |
works. For example, when I rewrite the package dep spec handling code |
| 17 |
to allow more flexibility, I need to make sure that it still correctly |
| 18 |
handles every supported EAPI. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> > The third step (removing it from everywhere) can be left until after |
| 21 |
> > we've given everyone reasonable time to clean up. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Users? Who haven't updated since several months? They don't care about |
| 24 |
> PMS at all. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Users care that their KDE remains working. We haven't taken a few |
| 27 |
simple steps to make sure that everyone who used to use genkdesvn |
| 28 |
has switched to using other ebuilds. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Seriously though, this stinks of politics. What's wrong with leaving |
| 31 |
something that's already there in place for a while longer? Why is |
| 32 |
there a desperate urge to remove it immediately? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives