| 1 |
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:26:11 -0600 |
| 2 |
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:54:34 -0800 |
| 5 |
> > Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >>> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/bin/isolated-functions.sh?r1=9118&r2=9140 |
| 7 |
> >> Alright, so portage has put this stuff to stderr since January 4. |
| 8 |
> >> Then why are we also adding workarounds to individual eclasses? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > How many people are running a Portage version released after |
| 11 |
> > January 4? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Eventually, all of them. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
And until then, how many users are going to get things going weirdly |
| 16 |
wrong if workarounds aren't added to everything using the code? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I'd mutter something about EAPIs here, but really if people are having |
| 19 |
difficulty understanding the necessity of the original commit, I |
| 20 |
suspect it's a lost cause... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives