| 1 |
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 02:50:51 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> PMFJI, but either I'm not understanding either, or mgorny did |
| 5 |
> understand, but is looking at it from a different perspective, that |
| 6 |
> being the eclass maintainer's perspective, and thus seeing an |
| 7 |
> angle/problem you didn't cover in your example. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Here's the problem. If an eclass hasn't been ported to a new EAPI, |
| 10 |
> then it's reasonable for the eclass maintainer to assume that no |
| 11 |
> ebuilds inheriting it should have been ported to that EAPI either. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
These cases can, of course, be marked as suggested in the initial post. |
| 15 |
The example I wrote even broke in most cases when using the new EAPI, |
| 16 |
providing an even more objective case pro-dying. |
| 17 |
All are perfectly valid cases, but nothing shows it has to be the norm. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
[...] |
| 20 |
> Did I get that correct, mgorny, or am I too not understanding, |
| 21 |
> aballier? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
There is a huge gap between what you wrote and 'let's commit crap and |
| 25 |
hope it will work; worst case, things will go horribly kaboom on |
| 26 |
users'. |
Archives