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. > 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". -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
