On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:39:43 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > The historical mess is not relevant anymore. Is there a single > > > real case when IUSE does not contain *at least* the ebuild-set > > > IUSE? > > > > The historical mess applies to things under EAPI control. If you > > want stronger guarantees, you know how to propose things for a > > future EAPI. > > You didn't answer my question.
Well no. The point of having a spec for all of this is that we don't have to spend a long time carefully checking things to answer this kind of question every single time a topic is discussed (and this topic has come up quite a few times). You can just look back and see the justification for the spec wording that was given. Then, if you want a change, you can get it in a future EAPI, without us having to worry about working out exactly what the impact will be. Or to put it another way, the point of having a spec is not to give you something to argue about every time it is brought up. The answer to the important question -- "is this legal?" -- is in the spec. The Council approved the spec. There is a process for changing the spec in a controlled manner. That's all that's relevant to this thread. If you really want to discuss archaeology, you're welcome to start another thread, and see if anyone cares to do the work to give you a detailed answer. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
