| 1 |
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:18:35 +0200 |
| 2 |
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:33 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> |
| 4 |
> > wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > "epatch" is so widely used and basic that I wonder why it's still |
| 6 |
> > > not implemented as a real helper function. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Because then its harder to change, it must be in PMS, otherwise you |
| 9 |
> > have to do things like test which version of epatch the package |
| 10 |
> > manager provides....sounds a lot like EAPI :) |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> You know, that's actually a pretty good case *for* base.eclass, |
| 14 |
> eutils.eclass and similar... we should probably move more functions |
| 15 |
> there... :D |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'm not sure that having to make sure you don't break ten thousand |
| 18 |
packages whenever you make a change is a good case... When it's EAPI |
| 19 |
controlled, if a change causes problems, it doesn't break anything. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives