| 1 |
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:43:38 +0200 |
| 2 |
Hans de Graaff <graaff@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> That leaves the question what to do with the approach for EAPI=2,3. |
| 4 |
> I'd rather not risk breaking ebuilds by removing this support just |
| 5 |
> for a violation of PMS if there is no real problem exposed by it. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
The 'invariant' restriction on S in PMS is, strictly speaking, stronger |
| 8 |
than it has to be. However, working out exactly what set of weaker |
| 9 |
rules would be ok proved to be too difficult -- historically, Portage |
| 10 |
has had various different behaviours for global scope variables that |
| 11 |
are assigned variable values. Thus, PMS is the way it is there because |
| 12 |
we know for sure that if you follow those rules you're safe; if you |
| 13 |
don't, you'll definitely cause problems for EAPI 4, and you may or may |
| 14 |
not get away with it for earlier EAPIs. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It's a bit like assuming that it's ok to dereference a null pointer |
| 17 |
and get a zero, since that's what one particular system does... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives