On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:00:12 +0100 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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. Indeed, according to pms.git commit log, the rule was laxed because it was clearly an oversight in EAPI6 [1] and was the standard behavior in previous EAPIs. But in the same commit, an "harmless note" was added that "Ebuilds must not access the directory in global scope." in addition to the "May or may not exist" statement and "Not necessarily present when installing from a binary package" footnote. Please explain how this last addition is not a backwards-breaking change. PMS is not a tool to push your personal agenda of cleaning up the deve^^err tree. [1] https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/pms.git/commit/?id=fa4ac9474048ec75af138fc61f22485c06aac5b7
