| 1 |
On 10-09-2012 10:28:26 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:25:05 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On 10-09-2012 09:32:23 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > So really we should just not support prefix at all in any EAPI |
| 6 |
> > > before 5, and not have the whole "but define those prefix variables |
| 7 |
> > > anyway" hack in eclasses. But apparently people are preferring to |
| 8 |
> > > go to great lengths not to have to use newer EAPIs... |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > I think the problem is that this vision doesn't really give a |
| 11 |
> > migration path, even when people are willing to move on to EAPI 5. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> It gives you a marvellous opportunity to get the tree using newer EAPIs |
| 14 |
> as you prefixify things. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
You ignore the current state of affairs, IMO. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> > Personally, this vision doesn't really encourage me to push any |
| 19 |
> > changes for this, since Portage seems to handle it well. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> No, it really doesn't. Portage's error checking just isn't good enough |
| 22 |
> yet that you notice the breakage. "Appears to work for some subset |
| 23 |
> of inputs if you don't look too closely" is not "works". |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
This really deviates from getting us to a solution. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 30 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives