Tom Wijsman <tom...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Martin Vaeth <va...@mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de> wrote: >> >> So keeping PMS is more important than usability? > > Being supported is more important than running into breakage.
What has a line in PMS which has practically no influence on anybody except for breaking user experience have to do with "being supported"? Does any developer's life change so bad that he cannot support it anymore if the package manager no longer gives misleading errors to the user? > Does support increase user experience? What about breakage? Yeah, treating user-config files in a clearer way will break things horribly. Better question: What about the breakages which the side effect of package.accept_keywords has just proven to cause? > Let's say I want to have PM support for bug #449094 and do bug #472906. You proved that you can find modifications of PMS which obviously can have bad side effects in certain situations. And so what? I am not going to kick your strawman. > So, let's not rush this magic > eapi-5-kernel feature and do it properly as part of eapi-6 or later. Sure, introducing a new feature can wait until the involved packages provide the new EAPI. But the dependency breakage of the side effect we are talking about will stay as long as at least one package in the dependency chain is not EAPI=6 or newer, i.e. "not rushing" in your term means waiting for ... 10 years? ... 20 years? ...forever? This is simply not an appropriate way how to deal with problem when they turn up in an already released EAPI. Especially not, if it is such a tiny issue which can be fixed by reformulating one or two lines just with having the side effects in mind (which had probably surprised everybody - including myself - in this consequence).
