| 1 |
El mié, 27-02-2013 a las 18:10 +0100, hasufell escribió: |
| 2 |
> I don't want to start another useless rant here, because I perfectly |
| 3 |
> understand the issue with ABI specific headers. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> The problem is: |
| 6 |
> a) if you break a provider on purpose, then you should feel |
| 7 |
> somehow responsible for the consumers and not just dump testing and |
| 8 |
> fixing on your fellow devs |
| 9 |
> b) just test such things in an overlay first and see it explode, then |
| 10 |
> think about it again and ask on dev-ML if other people find it even |
| 11 |
> WORTH the hassle |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The other thing is: |
| 15 |
> We still have the conflict with eclass-solution vs PM-solution |
| 16 |
> (multilib-portage) and I propose not to convert ANYTHING else until that |
| 17 |
> conflict is solved, even if it means a council vote (that's what I |
| 18 |
> actually think makes sense here). |
| 19 |
> I understand both sides and somehow find it appealing to have a quicker |
| 20 |
> solution, but since this could damage years of work on a portage fork I |
| 21 |
> think we should slow down here. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Personally I don't think mgorny "broke a provider on purpose", he should |
| 26 |
have released it hardmasked, but thinking he wanted to break testing on |
| 27 |
purpose looks excessive to me. Also, most of that committed stuff was |
| 28 |
tested for some time in x11 overlay, no? (not sure if probably freetype |
| 29 |
was missed by some error, but clearly the transition to the eclasses |
| 30 |
providing native multilib were tested "on purpose" in that overlay |
| 31 |
before moving to the tree). |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
About PM-solution... I can't remember how many years we are waiting it |
| 34 |
for being approved, and neither remember what was blocking it for |
| 35 |
inclusion in eapi5 (as that threads usually end up being fairly long and |
| 36 |
ending with blockers like PMS documentation changes and so :( ) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
I also remember this "conflict" between portage-multilib and eclasses |
| 39 |
ways were discussed some weeks ago here (I thought specially between |
| 40 |
mgorny and... aballier?) |
Archives