| 1 |
I don't want to start another useless rant here, because I perfectly |
| 2 |
understand the issue with ABI specific headers. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
The problem is: |
| 5 |
a) if you break a provider on purpose, then you should feel |
| 6 |
somehow responsible for the consumers and not just dump testing and |
| 7 |
fixing on your fellow devs |
| 8 |
b) just test such things in an overlay first and see it explode, then |
| 9 |
think about it again and ask on dev-ML if other people find it even |
| 10 |
WORTH the hassle |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The other thing is: |
| 14 |
We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution |
| 15 |
(multilib-portage) and I propose not to convert ANYTHING else until that |
| 16 |
conflict is solved, even if it means a council vote (that's what I |
| 17 |
actually think makes sense here). |
| 18 |
I understand both sides and somehow find it appealing to have a quicker |
| 19 |
solution, but since this could damage years of work on a portage fork I |
| 20 |
think we should slow down here. |
Archives