| 1 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 5:37:08 PM CET, Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: |
| 2 |
> 1) All pre-PMS, non-PMS-conformant behaviour should be |
| 3 |
> considered deprecated |
| 4 |
> immediately. |
| 5 |
> 2) We encourage creation of trackers to hunt down and kill pre-PMS, non-PMS- |
| 6 |
> conformant behaviour of ebuilds, eclasses, package managers |
| 7 |
> 3) We introduce a hard deadline when all this should be fixed. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
You seem to be generalizing to all cases from a very specific one: |
| 11 |
multislot is breaking an important assumption (SLOT being constant) and |
| 12 |
dropping it is not breaking anything. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Some examples that would fall under the scope of your proposal: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=202631 |
| 17 |
-> Needed to comply with other PMS rules on some systems ('patch' being GNU |
| 18 |
patch inside ebuilds, etc.) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=203891 |
| 21 |
-> Without this, we'd install a half-broken glibc by default. Any deadline |
| 22 |
would have to take in consideration the time needed to have a fixed glibc |
| 23 |
in stable. |
| 24 |
(some ocaml stuff are also offenders here, but it is really minor in |
| 25 |
comparison, and I've been trying to move away from the "feature" causing |
| 26 |
the need for it as much as I could) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573306 |
| 29 |
-> Needed to get cross-compilation (or even ROOT!=/) to work properly. |
| 30 |
(Independtly of PM getting cross-compilation deps properly). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
The above examples are needed in order to be able to provide working stuff, |
| 34 |
predate PMS and do not conform to it. The only issue they cause is that |
| 35 |
alternative PMs might not implement them properly. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Alexis. |
Archives