| 1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> I see no reason to make Portage less strict than it is now. There |
| 5 |
>> is no valid use case for this, and the PMS behavior is just plain |
| 6 |
>> stupid. Reverting the change will not bring any clear gain, and |
| 7 |
>> will only surprise people who actually hit the case. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> ++ |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Measure twice, cut once. Figure out what the spec should be before |
| 12 |
> we start changing things, unless we're confident that the direction |
| 13 |
> we're going to head down is actually an improvement. The fact that |
| 14 |
> getting it right is harder than was originally thought is just that |
| 15 |
> much more reason to not mess with the code yet if nothing is |
| 16 |
> actually breaking. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Blame Portage. Twice, first for implementing "plain stupid" behaviour |
| 19 |
that was used as the basis of the current specification, and second |
| 20 |
for later changing it contrary to the spec. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
In fact, incompletely changing it, leaving the worst part (empty |
| 23 |
disjunctions evaluating to true) in place. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Ulrich |
Archives