1 |
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:36:41 -0400 |
2 |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> On Monday 29 April 2013 01:55:49 Michał Górny wrote: |
4 |
> > Now, what are your thoughts? Shall we fix PMS to explicitly state |
5 |
> > the argument order or implement ugly hacks in ebuilds? |
6 |
> |
7 |
> portage has always inserted implicit args before the args given by |
8 |
> the ebuild to econf. PMS omitting the ordering information is simply |
9 |
> an oversight to be clarified, not functionality that may be relied |
10 |
> upon. |
11 |
|
12 |
As you can see in the bug, we're not discussing anything related to EAPI |
13 |
0 behaviour, so this argument is irrelevant. We're discussing a change |
14 |
in a later EAPI, where the change had nothing to say about ordering. |
15 |
|
16 |
-- |
17 |
Ciaran McCreesh |