Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Clarify wording on self-blockers
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:42:33
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] Clarify wording on self-blockers by Ciaran McCreesh
On Tuesday 26 of April 2011 20:25:26 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:19:17 +0200 > > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: > > I don't like adding such "undefined" bits in cases where portage > > behaviour is well-defined. > > It's not well-defined, though. Different Portage versions have done > very different things for it. Remember that strong vs weak blockers are > a recent invention, and that in the old days Portage treated all > blockers as being a bit like what strong blockers are now.
AFAIK strong blockers were introduced with EAPI-2 which was introduced around two and a half year ago which is considered ancient times already and not recent like you would suggest. I'd say using "in some ancient portage" argument all over again to reinforce particular point of view is not valid. -- regards MM


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


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] Clarify wording on self-blockers Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>