Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: flag-o-matic.eclass

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@blueyonder.co.uk>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 892 bytes --]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:26:11 -0600
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:54:34 -0800
> > Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/bin/isolated-functions.sh?r1=9118&r2=9140
> >> Alright, so portage has put this stuff to stderr since January 4.
> >> Then why are we also adding workarounds to individual eclasses?
> > 
> > How many people are running a Portage version released after
> > January 4?
> 
> Eventually, all of them.

And until then, how many users are going to get things going weirdly
wrong if workarounds aren't added to everything using the code?

I'd mutter something about EAPIs here, but really if people are having
difficulty understanding the necessity of the original commit, I
suspect it's a lost cause...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]