| 1 |
On 03/13/12 01:12, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is |
| 5 |
>> still not needed. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> ...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55 |
| 8 |
> definitely works, whereas other solutions might work so long as we |
| 9 |
> don't do something unexpected. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not to |
| 12 |
> use GLEP 55. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
That kind of circular reasoning makes my head hurt. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
We discussed that ... topic ... to death about three times over the last |
| 18 |
2 years, and the same arguments still apply. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Put an EAPI-marker in a well-defined position near the top of the |
| 21 |
ebuild, problem solved. If it needs more it's not an ebuild anymore and |
| 22 |
we should consider fixing all the other annoying glitches we have at the |
| 23 |
same time, which causes a backwards-incompatible tree format change, |
| 24 |
which means we need to plan the whole thing properly. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Trying to nail on GLEP55 is just trying to fix issues arising from not |
| 27 |
fixing issues properly, so *if* we want to change things for no apparent |
| 28 |
reason we should change them properly. |
Archives