| 1 |
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:15:41 -0500 |
| 2 |
Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > Dnia 2014-02-17, o godz. 13:44:04 |
| 7 |
> > Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > To be honest, I'm against adding new implementations to the old |
| 10 |
> > eclass. I'm all for letting it rot and not adding extra work on |
| 11 |
> > maintaining ebuilds using it. Since it is opt-out, adding the new |
| 12 |
> > implementation would mean we need to add restrictions to ebuilds. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Instead, I'd just say that we require the new eclass for py3.4. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> That's fine by me, as long as it doesn't break anything. I can't think |
| 17 |
> of any such breakage off the top of my head. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
Agreed, I don't see how it could break anything and it could help |
| 20 |
speed up migrating the remaining packages to the new eclasses. |
Archives