-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 18/11/15 12:05, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Only that there is no real difference to the existing situation > when mixing stable and unstable. It is not guaranteed that all > dependencies of an unstable package are stable, so already now > users may have to accept the ~ keyword for dependencies in some > cases. Similarly, such users may have to accept EAPI 6 for some > dependencies, which implies that they install a package manager > supporting EAPI 6. There's a difference between some packages being troublesome, and encouraging everyone to rewrite their eclasses and ebuilds, if the end result is a huge portion of ebuilds causing headaches.
> And on what basis would you stabilise Portage, when there are no > ebuilds in the tree to test its EAPI 6 code? When I do QA in projects I'm involved with (at least outside of Gentoo), we don't do it live on end-user systems. I'll leave the details as an exercise for the Gentoo developer. > If we had followed this argument in the past, we would be at EAPI > 0 still. Reaching. - -- Alexander berna...@gentoo.org https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWTF0EAAoJENQqWdRUGk8BR/IQANZUF+ZFdVuzEqhayUiH6teG 5zqi2rlyx3Sh7N7zdm4NyG9k/GW9LZrok2ZC4fcruIuOx8gAG9oPFzAfGgwFnojf ugsD7xSSHyHXpZONvmqffRs6AbX6omGdmdF8tmPHec28iWl44g79D25Eqj+dqsyd XRqjmAuQauB/fmiLaFyZmGrDuvzn/e+DO8P6QzMgw9OTPV/YZM2FQsvO8gHQPH16 MVlAhIIo46gAh8sMKP7SGok87J7rV1LiRn/Z+RCsjRSMWsGjCRvFRTGeCCNs8sMA BLMds7I+7Oj64YvoVCtjRlfJw+NL6l2Xrb9ZEpjNefnUuP1PY8FlVTd4w2rLEhyn issEplE4EFA1uJiEv5atVaW7Sjl1YO+XoSyrxs5jmYcXEcB3ohtjhGYUWCDyn3H6 EjNTALqiHLnQQoNxxpDQcqNa6QAEYwna2y5813FXk7qG+qrbjx2tUwjwuDgdq201 QL4dZIhgbOrGb4ePa5hgoN9PuoGveIpUUYNjFHAAJHWTlbje842O5XuoiGLSxkyX tqhtSqZni/uiuS8wD+uEHR0Edc80YgYH8UOZ+g4ePKyEU/GBwC7GaR48eAPAukMD GRIi8BqS3azEXkexdLaxJ8ksTKOzsCabr0BkI10rc/N/EMbBlKWwjc8ajq3x2pJ5 Gx0NNxCn54sqskDeLWxQ =0ySj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
