| 1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Alexander Berntsen wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 18/11/15 08:25, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 4 |
>> - If you mix stable and unstable then you are by definition an |
| 5 |
>> advanced user, who will be able to cope with the situation. :) |
| 6 |
> This attitude is shitty, and I am willing to wager a really big |
| 7 |
> bunch of users fall into this category. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Only that there is no real difference to the existing situation when |
| 10 |
mixing stable and unstable. It is not guaranteed that all dependencies |
| 11 |
of an unstable package are stable, so already now users may have to |
| 12 |
accept the ~ keyword for dependencies in some cases. Similarly, such |
| 13 |
users may have to accept EAPI 6 for some dependencies, which implies |
| 14 |
that they install a package manager supporting EAPI 6. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> I don't think EAPI 6 is *that* shiny, that we need to start using it |
| 17 |
> prior to stable Portage supporting it. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
And on what basis would you stabilise Portage, when there are no |
| 20 |
ebuilds in the tree to test its EAPI 6 code? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> It's a potential mess for a huge portion of our users. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If we had followed this argument in the past, we would be at EAPI 0 |
| 25 |
still. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Ulrich |
Archives