| 1 |
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> claiming breakage is a red herring. i'll wager that clarifying PMS to match |
| 4 |
> realistic intentions and the largest PM won't break a single package. |
| 5 |
> appending args over the econf args is asinine. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
If many packages actually break with the change I'm sure everybody |
| 8 |
will see the sense in making the change in a new EAPI. However, from |
| 9 |
the sound of things all these packages would already be broken with |
| 10 |
portage, and I'm sure those would have been flagged by the |
| 11 |
tinderbox/users/etc by now if that were the case. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Having econf options override build system options "just makes sense." |
| 14 |
If that wasn't documented, well, let's document it. However, this |
| 15 |
isn't some DoD project with a 35k page requirement specification - |
| 16 |
there are going to be elements of PMS behavior that simply aren't |
| 17 |
defined. Lack of specification causing inconsistent solutions is |
| 18 |
understandable, but if there is a "common sense" solution we really |
| 19 |
should embrace it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Rich |
Archives