| 1 |
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:13:00 +0200 |
| 2 |
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 18:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
| 4 |
> > On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:54:43 +0200 |
| 5 |
> > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > That isn't necessary what could occur if the behavior changes |
| 7 |
> > > unexpectedly: as current behavior is already being assumed in |
| 8 |
> > > eclasses/ebuilds, portage couldn't change it without, before, |
| 9 |
> > > porting ebuilds/eclasses to use that new hypothetical behavior. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Sure it can. Portage supports what's in the spec. If you're relying |
| 12 |
> > upon undefined behaviour, it's your problem when it stops working. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> It cannot break the tree, only square-headed people can think somebody |
| 15 |
> would force a breakage and don't try to fix it before. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Uhm, if you're relying upon a coincidence of how Portage currently |
| 18 |
happens to work, you're already broken. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives