| 1 |
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:14:23 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dnia 22 lipca 2016 13:00:42 CEST, Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 3 |
> >On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:12:12 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
[...] |
| 5 |
> >> Few important QA notes: |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> 1. < is lexicographical comparison, so e.g. 1.6.2.2 < 1.6.18.2 gives |
| 8 |
> >> false, |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> >Thanks, fixed. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> >> 2. REPLACING_VERSIONS can have more than one value, |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> >While it can indeed, I see no way for this to happen if package |
| 15 |
> >hasn't and never had multiple slots. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Wrong. PMS specifically requests you to account for such a possibility. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Common sence must prevail over formal approaches. While PMS is |
| 20 |
great, it is not perfect in all possible aspects, and this one is |
| 21 |
one of them. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I see no point in trashing ebuilds with dead code that will never |
| 24 |
be used. Though if there will be a PMS or eclass function with |
| 25 |
"proper" implementation, I don't mind, since extra code will be |
| 26 |
moved from ebuild elsewhere. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Best regards, |
| 29 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives