| 1 |
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:02:29 -0800 |
| 2 |
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> - PMS, bug #250077: Do we need to get involved in this? (-dev) |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
The question for this one, really, is whether people are happy having |
| 6 |
such a vaguely specified utility whose behaviour keeps changing in |
| 7 |
ways that break existing idioms. If they are, at the very least we'd |
| 8 |
need a guarantee from the Portage people that they're not going to |
| 9 |
change its behaviour yet again, and ideally they'd revert the recent |
| 10 |
behaviour changes back to what stable Portage does. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
-- |
| 13 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives