| 1 |
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Well, I still think it's horrible (and I think the same about |
| 4 |
>> pretty much anything else using has_version...), but I can't come |
| 5 |
>> up with any creative way of interpreting PMS to say that it |
| 6 |
>> *should* be illegal... So if we're making a change, it's a |
| 7 |
>> retroactive one to work around a Portage bug... |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Going with it being a Portage bug is fine by me. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
+1 |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Changing PMS seems unnatural in this case. Why should the USE flag |
| 14 |
syntax for has_version be different from the one in dependencies? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Ulrich |
Archives