| 1 |
El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 14:52 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:13:40 -0400 |
| 6 |
> Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > PMS may not need to be fixed, just the spec |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> PMS is the spec, and it doesn't need fixing, since it accurately |
| 10 |
> reflects the situation we're dealing with. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> - -- |
| 13 |
> Ciaran McCreesh |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
What is preventing us from specifying current behavior in PMS? Current |
| 16 |
behavior is already working for ages and being used in the tree for a |
| 17 |
long time, then, the clear way to go is to document it and, if it needs |
| 18 |
to change in the future, specify new behavior on a newer eapi. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It's the simplest solution, it should work, would prevent us from need |
| 21 |
to move current eclasses/ebuilds to worse ways of handling this to later |
| 22 |
revert that work. |
Archives