Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Cc: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>, Christian Faulhammer <fauli@g.o>, gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionals
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:06:55
Message-Id: 20091211213412.7484f49c@snowmobile
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionals by Ulrich Mueller
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:26:11 +0100
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
> > The second step (ensuring that people no longer have kdebuild-1 > > packages installed) can be done with the next major Paludis release. > > So you also don't need it for the next major Paludis release. And > probably you also have better uses for your time than to do bug fixes > for kdebuild-1 in minor releases?
I need it there for as long as there is support for it in Paludis, which is two major releases away if we do this the responsible way (the first to issue warnings, the second to remove). And it's not about doing bug fixes. It's about making changes that affect multiple EAPIs, and ensuring that each of those EAPIs still works. For example, when I rewrite the package dep spec handling code to allow more flexibility, I need to make sure that it still correctly handles every supported EAPI.
> > The third step (removing it from everywhere) can be left until after > > we've given everyone reasonable time to clean up. > > Users? Who haven't updated since several months? They don't care about > PMS at all.
Users care that their KDE remains working. We haven't taken a few simple steps to make sure that everyone who used to use genkdesvn has switched to using other ebuilds. Seriously though, this stinks of politics. What's wrong with leaving something that's already there in place for a while longer? Why is there a desperate urge to remove it immediately? -- Ciaran McCreesh


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] kdebuild-1 conditionals Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>