On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 02:50:51 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> PMFJI, but either I'm not understanding either, or mgorny did > understand, but is looking at it from a different perspective, that > being the eclass maintainer's perspective, and thus seeing an > angle/problem you didn't cover in your example. > > Here's the problem. If an eclass hasn't been ported to a new EAPI, > then it's reasonable for the eclass maintainer to assume that no > ebuilds inheriting it should have been ported to that EAPI either. These cases can, of course, be marked as suggested in the initial post. The example I wrote even broke in most cases when using the new EAPI, providing an even more objective case pro-dying. All are perfectly valid cases, but nothing shows it has to be the norm. [...] > Did I get that correct, mgorny, or am I too not understanding, > aballier? There is a huge gap between what you wrote and 'let's commit crap and hope it will work; worst case, things will go horribly kaboom on users'.
