| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 30/08/12 09:04 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> |
| 6 |
> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> If you are rewriting a full ebuild as your solution, and the |
| 8 |
>> ebuild you start with is EAPI<4 , then Markos would appreciate it |
| 9 |
>> if you changed the ebuild to be EAPI=4 (or whatever the latest |
| 10 |
>> EAPI is) in addition to the fix. Otherwise, just do what you do |
| 11 |
>> and Markos "should" bump the ebuild to EAPI=4 when he applies |
| 12 |
>> your fixes. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> And if he doesn't have time to do that, he'll just go ahead and |
| 15 |
> ignore your bug and users can make do without the fix. :) |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Rich |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I think you may miss the meaning of "should". It's not the same as |
| 21 |
"must". IE, when bug or security fixes happen, i'm pretty sure it's |
| 22 |
still OK to apply those (even when bumping the ebuild) as soon as |
| 23 |
possible even though the ebuild isn't EAPI=4. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The idea here is to not let old EAPI's sit around in the tree forever, |
| 26 |
not to halt all maintenance. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 29 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlA/ZX8ACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCUWQD/azjLKkv6Mpa1tLuupSuOM5AZ |
| 32 |
O1y83kdzWAYqeU/4tZAA/i/+8kEhOf76UDxm3f8K1AhOxQp7GUg/mO2MBRStdln+ |
| 33 |
=hM58 |
| 34 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives