1 |
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:59:59 +0100 |
2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> Dnia 2014-01-26, o godz. 21:35:27 |
4 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> napisał(a): |
5 |
> > On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:21:44 -0800 |
6 |
> > Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> > > Sorry, I work on Portage. What I'm saying is that We are free to |
8 |
> > > change the behavior of *portage* now; rather than waiting for a |
9 |
> > > new EAPI. If an ebuild needs to define EAPI=eapi-next to |
10 |
> > > 'correctly' use XDG_*, well that is someone else's can of worms. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > Changing Portage to hide the issue is a bad idea, since it makes it |
13 |
> > harder for developers to notice that that's a problem they need to |
14 |
> > fix. Although maybe you could set XDG_* to something that will give |
15 |
> > a big noisy sandbox violation for current EAPIs? |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Yes, because instantly breaking a few dozen ebuilds in stable tree for |
18 |
> the sake of proving a point is always a good idea. |
19 |
|
20 |
It's not about proving a point, it's about fixing existing bugs. It's |
21 |
changing a hard-to-see error into an easy-to-see error, so that it can |
22 |
be fixed more quickly. This change would introduce no new breakage, |
23 |
since anything affected by it is already broken. |
24 |
|
25 |
-- |
26 |
Ciaran McCreesh |