| 1 |
On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 10:51:06 +0200 |
| 2 |
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> To fix the eclasses, and several ebuilds in tree to not do this for |
| 4 |
> something that "might be a problem" or fix the PMS wording to match |
| 5 |
> reality? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Reality is that what you're doing has been problematic, which is why |
| 8 |
PMS contains the wording that it does. That you happen to have gotten |
| 9 |
away with it in a particular case is not grounds for amending the |
| 10 |
specification to incorrectly claim that the general case will work. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
You may find it helpful to investigate exactly what "reality" is. As is |
| 13 |
often the case, "reality" is not "what you want it to be". If you |
| 14 |
really want PMS changed, you'll need to produce a list of specific |
| 15 |
behaviours that have consistently been safe. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives