1 |
On Monday 29 April 2013 15:17:40 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:09:36 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: |
3 |
> > > As you can see in the bug, we're not discussing anything related to |
4 |
> > > EAPI 0 behaviour, so this argument is irrelevant. We're discussing |
5 |
> > > a change in a later EAPI, where the change had nothing to say about |
6 |
> > > ordering. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > There's a difference between 'we' and 'you alone'. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Well yes, you're trying to ignore the actual issue and go around |
11 |
> retroactively breaking things rather than just change the wording in |
12 |
> EAPI 6. But that doesn't change the fact that the actual bug in the |
13 |
> ebuild wouldn't be showing up if it were EAPI 0. |
14 |
|
15 |
claiming breakage is a red herring. i'll wager that clarifying PMS to match |
16 |
realistic intentions and the largest PM won't break a single package. |
17 |
appending args over the econf args is asinine. |
18 |
-mike |