| 1 |
2017-02-21 12:56 GMT+01:00 Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o>: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 13:16:59 +1300 |
| 4 |
> Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Also, given its a -9999 package, standards and assumptions of quality |
| 7 |
> > are typically much lower. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> not at all; a lot of people do maintain -9999 pretty well in order to |
| 10 |
> follow upstream and use it as a template when bumping the next version, |
| 11 |
> so standards and assumptions of quality are actually higher there :) |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> yes, or to look from a different angle, speaking for -9999 packages _in_ |
| 14 |
tree: |
| 15 |
It can be expected that it does not build because the ebuild has not caught |
| 16 |
up with upstream, hopefully for the shortest time possible. |
| 17 |
_but_ it should have the same level of (bash/EAPI/deps) code cleanliness of |
| 18 |
any other ebuild. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
BTW that help a lot we, users, that want to test that package in the limbo |
| 21 |
time upstream has done some changes and the ebuild as not caught up. |
| 22 |
Othrewise just avoid the -9999 in tree, a lot of developer have said they |
| 23 |
are evil in the past (right?) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
cheers, |
| 26 |
Francesco |
Archives