Dnia 2013-11-17, o godz. 17:04:17 Martin Vaeth <va...@mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de> napisał(a):
> Andreas K. Huettel <dilfri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > Am Freitag, 15. November 2013, 21:18:03 schrieb Martin Vaeth: > > > >> If this is not very hard to implement in portage, I would > >> strongly vote to remove this implicit connection: > > > > Not really doable since this is explicitly defined as such in EAPI=5 PMS. > > > > Retroactively changing PMS is probably not a good idea. > > So keeping PMS is more important than usability? > Great! One must know where to put emphasis and keep > an unfortunate chosen detail forever (or, as experience > concerning EAPI upgrades shows, at least for decades) > in order to fulfill a nonsense bureoucracy which probably > at most 3 packages use, currently. Certainly, this is > more important than user experience! And what does quickly removing used feature gain us in terms of usability? You seem to be thoroughly ignoring the reasons and benefits of stable.mask and just focusing on your pretty mixed-arch system. You are willing to sacrifice the quality of stable tree for the sake of a solution that is not even officially yet you believe everyone uses it. Furthermore, some people think that issues are to be fixed. And by fixed I mean the actual issues, not the whole component that is having them. If we were to randomly choose a component that is involved in your issues, we may as well remove support for mixing stable and unstable packages. In fact, this will more likely fix a few more bugs! And something small at the end: if your hand hurts (it's the issue), do you 'fix' the pain or do you cut the hand off? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
