Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Cc: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>, Gentoo Council <council@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items, council meeting 8/October/2017 18:00 UTC
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 20:05:39
Message-Id: 1506974732.10033.0.camel@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items, council meeting 8/October/2017 18:00 UTC by Kristian Fiskerstrand
1 W dniu pon, 02.10.2017 o godzinie 22∶01 +0200, użytkownik Kristian
2 Fiskerstrand napisał:
3 > On 10/02/2017 09:58 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
4 > > Does the PMS actually define what the correct behavior is for this
5 > > syntax?
6 >
7 > it evaluates to a true, i.e always valid/resolved. And although
8 > explicitly naming an empty group in an ebuild is, probably?, not useful,
9 > I don't see why we'd have a definition that errors out on explicit
10 > definition but not on an implicit reduction, as the package manager
11 > needs to be able to handle the situation anyways. I'm all for banning
12 > the empty construct in QA scope though.
13 >
14
15 Have you read the commit message? The current spec makes no sense by
16 itself, and no package manager has been following it for 6+ years.
17
18 --
19 Best regards,
20 Michał Górny

Replies