From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HwQ8L-0003jn-PE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:07:10 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l57M67ES031479; Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:06:07 GMT Received: from ppsw-4.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-4.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.134]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l57M29EK025934 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:02:09 GMT X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from spb42.christs.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.233.172]:34847 helo=maya) by ppsw-4.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.154]:25) with esmtpsa (LOGIN:spb42) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1HwQ3T-000896-FZ (Exim 4.63) for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org (return-path ); Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:02:07 +0100 Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 23:18:41 +0100 From: Stephen Bennett To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PMS] Version Naming Clarification Message-ID: <20070607231841.6943fe53@maya> In-Reply-To: <20070607223849.369de36d@snowflake> References: <46680E94.2080705@gentoo.org> <46683328.6010708@gentoo.org> <20070607194245.9b469b5d.genone@gentoo.org> <20070607213207.190d4117@maya> <20070607203321.GA16428@boostbox.mill1.nb.home.nl> <20070607214043.73625566@snowflake> <20070607205238.GA17251@boostbox.mill1.nb.home.nl> <20070607221558.00c67301@snowflake> <20070607213138.GA25337@boostbox.mill1.nb.home.nl> <20070607223849.369de36d@snowflake> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.7.2 (GTK+ 2.10.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "S.P. Bennett" X-Archives-Salt: f3b3c0a4-526d-44ae-bcce-5d03671d213f X-Archives-Hash: c5855ae359cb3bba686ebb8f70d56060 On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:38:49 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > If Portage currently happens to, say, disable sandbox if an ebuild > sets GIVE_ME_A_COOKIE="yes" globally, it does not mean that ebuilds > may rely upon this behaviour, nor does it mean that Portage cannot > change in such a way that breaks this behaviour. The acceptance > question is relevant only for legitimate behaviour; things accepted > by fluke aren't considered accepted. However, the fact that Portage currently accepts it is tangentially related to the matter at hand, because it's a piece of code that may get confused by this sort of ambiguity. Fortunately it's (relatively speaking) trivial to fix, because the ambiguity only happens due to behaviour that shouldn't really be there. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list