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 |