On 2021-07-16 22:50, Sam James wrote:
But to introduce a fix, isn't it a _lot_ easier to do it at the point of a new
EAPI?
In general, IMHO only if we intend to preserve the old (incorrect)
behaviour for older EAPIs - which in this particular case was not needed
because I cannot think of so
> On 14 Jul 2021, at 13:43, Marek Szuba wrote:
>
> On 2021-07-14 13:02, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
>> Shouldn't virtual/fortran go into BDEPEND in EAPIs 7 and 8?
>
> Good point! I've created https://bugs.gentoo.org/802153 so that we do not
> lose track of this, that said it is beyond the scope
On 2021-07-14 13:02, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
Shouldn't virtual/fortran go into BDEPEND in EAPIs 7 and 8?
Good point! I've created https://bugs.gentoo.org/802153 so that we do
not lose track of this, that said it is beyond the scope of the issue at
hand (the eclass will not behave any different
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2021, Marek Szuba wrote:
> On the plus side, nothing in here that requires changing to work with
> the new EAPI. On the minus side, we still got many EAPI-5 and 6
> consumers of this eclass in the tree so no chance of dropping support
> for these two at this time.
Shouldn't v
On the plus side, nothing in here that requires changing to work with
the new EAPI. On the minus side, we still got many EAPI-5 and 6
consumers of this eclass in the tree so no chance of dropping support
for these two at this time.
