| 1 |
Hey Ulrich, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I may be a bit late to the discussion, and perhaps I should really just be |
| 4 |
reviewing mailing list posts from years past, but... |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
What's the story of eapply? Why does this need to go into the PMS, and not |
| 7 |
continue to be supplied by epatch from the eclass? What is gained from |
| 8 |
moving it to PMS, and why is it more semantically correct to have it there? |
| 9 |
Just curious about this. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The other question is more critical -- could you merge eapply and |
| 12 |
eapply_user? Or add some hook to PMS so that eapply_user isn't needed? IOW, |
| 13 |
it'd be nice if every package was, by default, patchable by the user. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Regards, |
| 16 |
Jason |
Archives