1 |
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:59:59 +0100 |
4 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>> Dnia 2014-01-26, o godz. 21:35:27 |
6 |
>> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> napisał(a): |
7 |
>> > On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:21:44 -0800 |
8 |
>> > Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
9 |
>> > > Sorry, I work on Portage. What I'm saying is that We are free to |
10 |
>> > > change the behavior of *portage* now; rather than waiting for a |
11 |
>> > > new EAPI. If an ebuild needs to define EAPI=eapi-next to |
12 |
>> > > 'correctly' use XDG_*, well that is someone else's can of worms. |
13 |
>> > |
14 |
>> > Changing Portage to hide the issue is a bad idea, since it makes it |
15 |
>> > harder for developers to notice that that's a problem they need to |
16 |
>> > fix. Although maybe you could set XDG_* to something that will give |
17 |
>> > a big noisy sandbox violation for current EAPIs? |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>> Yes, because instantly breaking a few dozen ebuilds in stable tree for |
20 |
>> the sake of proving a point is always a good idea. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> It's not about proving a point, it's about fixing existing bugs. It's |
23 |
> changing a hard-to-see error into an easy-to-see error, so that it can |
24 |
> be fixed more quickly. This change would introduce no new breakage, |
25 |
> since anything affected by it is already broken. |
26 |
> |
27 |
|
28 |
Most people do not have XDG_CONFIG_HOME, etc. set in their |
29 |
environment, so having the package manager set it to something that |
30 |
intentionally breaks ebuilds is a step backward for most end users. |
31 |
|
32 |
It would really nice to have a solution for the few users who do have |
33 |
this set that does not involve adding code to random eclasses, or |
34 |
leaving things broken for X months/years until all ebuilds can be |
35 |
bumped to EAPI 6. |