| 1 |
On 03/03/2010 02:47 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:47:37 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Tomáa Chvátal <scarabeus@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>>> Removing eclass functions like this is not allowed by current |
| 5 |
>>>> policy. If you want to do it, you should discuss about changing |
| 6 |
>>>> policy. |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> since when? |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>> Since ever. |
| 11 |
>> If you change eclass abi you need to rename it. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> No, that's not been the case 'since ever' at all. It used to be that if |
| 14 |
> you changed or removed a function, you just had to make sure you didn't |
| 15 |
> break anything. This was made more complicated by the way that eclasses |
| 16 |
> in the tree were used for removing installed packages too, which is no |
| 17 |
> longer an issue. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
You can't fix all possible overlays so you can only start removing |
| 21 |
functions that are used for installations if we decide we don't care |
| 22 |
about overlays. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Regards, |
| 25 |
Petteri |
Archives