On 10-09-2012 10:28:26 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:25:05 +0200 > Fabian Groffen <grob...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 10-09-2012 09:32:23 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > So really we should just not support prefix at all in any EAPI > > > before 5, and not have the whole "but define those prefix variables > > > anyway" hack in eclasses. But apparently people are preferring to > > > go to great lengths not to have to use newer EAPIs... > > > > I think the problem is that this vision doesn't really give a > > migration path, even when people are willing to move on to EAPI 5. > > It gives you a marvellous opportunity to get the tree using newer EAPIs > as you prefixify things.
You ignore the current state of affairs, IMO. > > Personally, this vision doesn't really encourage me to push any > > changes for this, since Portage seems to handle it well. > > No, it really doesn't. Portage's error checking just isn't good enough > yet that you notice the breakage. "Appears to work for some subset > of inputs if you don't look too closely" is not "works". This really deviates from getting us to a solution. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
