| 1 |
On Tuesday 26 of April 2011 20:25:26 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:19:17 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > I don't like adding such "undefined" bits in cases where portage |
| 6 |
> > behaviour is well-defined. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> It's not well-defined, though. Different Portage versions have done |
| 9 |
> very different things for it. Remember that strong vs weak blockers are |
| 10 |
> a recent invention, and that in the old days Portage treated all |
| 11 |
> blockers as being a bit like what strong blockers are now. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
AFAIK strong blockers were introduced with EAPI-2 which was introduced around |
| 14 |
two and a half year ago which is considered ancient times already and not |
| 15 |
recent like you would suggest. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'd say using "in some ancient portage" argument all over again to reinforce |
| 18 |
particular point of view is not valid. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
regards |
| 22 |
MM |
Archives