On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > claiming breakage is a red herring. i'll wager that clarifying PMS to match > realistic intentions and the largest PM won't break a single package. > appending args over the econf args is asinine.
If many packages actually break with the change I'm sure everybody will see the sense in making the change in a new EAPI. However, from the sound of things all these packages would already be broken with portage, and I'm sure those would have been flagged by the tinderbox/users/etc by now if that were the case. Having econf options override build system options "just makes sense." If that wasn't documented, well, let's document it. However, this isn't some DoD project with a 35k page requirement specification - there are going to be elements of PMS behavior that simply aren't defined. Lack of specification causing inconsistent solutions is understandable, but if there is a "common sense" solution we really should embrace it. Rich
