2012/5/21 Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org>: > On Monday 21 May 2012 19:24:27 Francesco Riosa wrote: >> 2012/5/22 Mike Frysinger: >> > On Monday 21 May 2012 19:01:04 Francesco Riosa wrote: >> >> 2012/5/22 Mike Frysinger: >> >> > On Monday 21 May 2012 18:16:25 Markos Chandras wrote: >> >> >> Excuse me but the way this change was handled is a bit depressing. >> >> >> First, the ebuilds should have been fixed to inherit eutils and then >> >> >> remove eutils from autotools. Now, a bunch of ebuilds are broken out >> >> >> of nowhere. I don't believe this issue was that urgent in order to >> >> >> justify the significant breakage of portage tree. >> >> > >> >> > you're assuming the breakage was intentional. i also wouldn't really >> >> > describe it as "significant", but that's just quibbling over an >> >> > insignificant aspect. >> >> >> >> It's intentional not to revert the change, it's significant because it >> >> involve a number of significant packages like icu, vim and boost, some >> >> of them already marked stable (from a fast grep from the one mentioned >> >> in the previous posts). >> > >> > you've identified the broke things. so fix them. >> >> wanna give me commit access for few hours? > > just join as a dev and get it over with ;P
maybe gentoo will live better w/o my fat typeing hands :-P >> I've already done mass changes to the tree when introducing >> virtual/mysql seem something doable the same way. > > seems people have already fixed most (if not all) errors related to > autotools.eclass Seem to be the better outcome. If someone could fix the remaining unfixed after x days that would be perfect, it's always unpleasant to touch other devs ebuilds but sometimes is just the only thing to do (replace with some philosophy mumble at pleasure;-) good night and thanks for answering
