| 1 |
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:39:43 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > The historical mess is not relevant anymore. Is there a single |
| 4 |
> > > real case when IUSE does not contain *at least* the ebuild-set |
| 5 |
> > > IUSE? |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > The historical mess applies to things under EAPI control. If you |
| 8 |
> > want stronger guarantees, you know how to propose things for a |
| 9 |
> > future EAPI. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> You didn't answer my question. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Well no. The point of having a spec for all of this is that we don't |
| 14 |
have to spend a long time carefully checking things to answer this kind |
| 15 |
of question every single time a topic is discussed (and this topic has |
| 16 |
come up quite a few times). You can just look back and see the |
| 17 |
justification for the spec wording that was given. Then, if you want a |
| 18 |
change, you can get it in a future EAPI, without us having to worry |
| 19 |
about working out exactly what the impact will be. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Or to put it another way, the point of having a spec is not to give you |
| 22 |
something to argue about every time it is brought up. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The answer to the important question -- "is this legal?" -- is in the |
| 25 |
spec. The Council approved the spec. There is a process for changing |
| 26 |
the spec in a controlled manner. That's all that's relevant to this |
| 27 |
thread. If you really want to discuss archaeology, you're welcome to |
| 28 |
start another thread, and see if anyone cares to do the work to give |
| 29 |
you a detailed answer. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives