Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists. c.f. bug 424647
On Tuesday 26 of April 2011 20:25:26 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:19:17 +0200
>
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
> > I don't like adding such "undefined" bits in cases where portage
> > behaviour is well-defined.
>
> It's not well-defined, though. Different Portage versions have done
> very different things for it. Remember that strong vs weak blockers are
> a recent invention, and that in the old days Portage treated all
> blockers as being a bit like what strong blockers are now.
AFAIK strong blockers were introduced with EAPI-2 which was introduced around
two and a half year ago which is considered ancient times already and not
recent like you would suggest.
I'd say using "in some ancient portage" argument all over again to reinforce
particular point of view is not valid.
--
regards
MM
|
| Attachment: |
|
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part.)
|
|
