| 1 |
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:42:22 +0200 |
| 4 |
> "vivo75@×××××.com" <vivo75@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> Now, is it possible to alter the behaviour of paludis to act, still |
| 6 |
>> following the specs, in a way compatible with portage and which seem |
| 7 |
>> more logical to the majority of people writing this thread? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Sure, and as an added bonus, we can do that selectively from EAPI 6 |
| 10 |
> onwards, avoiding the need to introduce a breaking change to the spec. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
There is little value in going back and forth on this. Portage |
| 13 |
already implements the desired logic, and I suspect that is unlikely |
| 14 |
to change. Anybody who uses paludis can always use portage when they |
| 15 |
run into something that doesn't compile the way they want it to, and |
| 16 |
as far as I can tell Portage implements PMS just fine anyway (the spec |
| 17 |
does not explicitly specify that build system options must override |
| 18 |
econf options, and I doubt that the Council would accept a retroactive |
| 19 |
change to codify the broken behavior in EAPI 5). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The only people who really suffer are those who wish to use Paludis, |
| 22 |
and they're welcome to fork it, wait until the whole tree migrates to |
| 23 |
EAPI 6, use portage on occasion, or offer up their suffering to the |
| 24 |
souls in Exherbo. ;) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Rich |
Archives