On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > The ASAP behavior seems relatively optimal, which makes it difficult to > argue that ebuild maintainers should have to go to the trouble of > creating virtuals and updating reverse dependencies.
Yes it is and I agree, but the point here is that PMS doesn't say anything about it. > > It seems like your setting up an ongoing conflict with ebuild > maintainers if you don't implement the ASAP behavior. Isn't it worth > your trouble to implement the ASAP behavior, just to get them out of > your hair? No it's not, but I would have the matter clarified first, and perhaps eventually fixed by updating PMS documentation. > >> OTOH, I think that the gray area should be cleared out by clearly >> stating what is legal or not in an updated EAPI. Isn't that >> reasonable? > > It's already been allowed for years, so a new EAPI would only make sense > if your taking away the ASAP behavior, which seems like a step > backwards. Given the push-back that you're likely to get from ebuild > developers over time, I think you're much better off if you just > implement the ASAP behavior. I would rather want to see it becoming mandatory by PMS, also. But beside the ASAP, do you agree that there is still a dependency issue? > -- > Thanks, > Zac > > -- Fabio Erculiani
