On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 16:17:06 +0000 Ferris McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about ebuilds which for > whatever reason are invalid (serious specification violation, for > example, to the extent that QA would reject them), but portage accepts > them anyway. Must the alternative accept them as well? Precedent says that a new (minor) Portage version can quite happily break such ebuilds, so I see no reason to say that any alternative should accept them. On a side note, this is part of the reason why we really need the ebuild/tree format properly defined somewhere. It would remove any worries about compatibility between ebuilds and package managers, as long as ebuilds conform to a given specification, and the package manager supports it. It also defines in a much better manner just what a broken ebuild is. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
