On czw, 2017-03-23 at 19:52 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:53:25 +0100 > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On czw, 2017-03-23 at 10:51 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:41:39 +0100 > > > "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Am Dienstag, 21. März 2017, 11:24:39 CET schrieb Andreas K. > > > > Huettel: > > > > > > > > > > So what's so special about your packages that you *need* a hack > > > > > as ugly as eblits? > > > > > > > > > > > > > No response. Seems like there are no real arguments for eblits. > > > > > > > > > > I guess the argument is not for or against eblit but rather about > > > "when you want to change something you don't maintain, you have to > > > justify it properly" > > > > Do you think really think it's fine for maintainer to: > > > > 1. go against best practices, principle of least surprise and > > basically make it harder for anyone else to touch the ebuild (-> aim > > for bus factor of 1 and/or making himself indispensable)? > > This is very (too) subjective. > > > 2. enforce package managers to exhibit non-PMS behavior by making core > > system packages rely on it? Not to mention minor incompatibilities > > causing silent breakage. > > What, exactly, is non-PMS ? The access rule has been added after last > EAPI was approved it seems.
It would be really appreciated if you at least conducted proper research before starting to troll. As Ulrich already explained in this thread (which I presume you have read), the rule was *laxed*. According to the previous rule, eblits could not work at all since FILESDIR was *never* allowed in global scope. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
