1 |
On 6/17/2013 4:10 PM, vivo75@×××××.com wrote: |
2 |
> On 06/15/13 19:02, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
3 |
>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
4 |
>> <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:56:00 -0400 |
6 |
>>> Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
>>>> If we find that all known implementations of PMS/EAPI 4 have |
8 |
>>>> implemented a certain behavior, making a change to that version of PMS |
9 |
>>>> to properly document the behavior seems reasonable. |
10 |
>>> Part of the point of EAPI stability is that it doesn't just apply to |
11 |
>>> current versions of package manglers. |
12 |
>>> |
13 |
>> So look back at the first versions which implemented EAPI 4 support, |
14 |
>> and see what the behavior was implemented at the point in time. |
15 |
>> |
16 |
> it make sense but it stretch things a lot. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Is it possible to: |
19 |
> - keep an open bug (tracker) on named eclasses/ebuilds, so we (users and |
20 |
> devs) know that there is a (teoric) fallacy |
21 |
> - approve it for EAPI 6 |
22 |
> - move all the eapi/ebuilds to EAPI 6 |
23 |
> - close the bugs as WONT-FIX |
24 |
> |
25 |
> In any case it should be easy to port an ebuild from EAPI4 to 6, if |
26 |
> gentoers want to keep things simple it could be more a version 5a than 6 |
27 |
> |
28 |
> regards |
29 |
|
30 |
What on earth is a "teoric fallacy"? |
31 |
|
32 |
I'm fine with waiting for EAPI 6 if necessary. |
33 |
|
34 |
I would not find a tracker bug very useful, and have no intention of |
35 |
starting one. |