From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6329139694 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:55:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AA4DE21C087; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:55:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mo6-p05-ob.smtp.rzone.de (mo6-p05-ob.smtp.rzone.de [IPv6:2a01:238:20a:202:5305::3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D46821C028 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:55:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1490266532; l=916; s=domk; d=akhuettel.de; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:References: In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:To:From; bh=X+AFaHQY9CRtWj6QVvZwhVBrxMbMLa2a3PMACQwUTpk=; b=t2vxMhVEe8rk2T6cvjCcobTc2vdIz64+zr6PVpiowaZFD2d+jHznMuvdNtJjvOKVul iF9eaq5QdUONnqJwUKjihz1fxOU/Oi7nmHvT2QoCjI+ORMtnJmqD/71gxG+8DObdEsJY tUQbGFPPsJgL6NmKHuXA144O/bn0v3GMl5pwY= X-RZG-AUTH: :IW0NeWCpcPchHrcnS4ebzBgQnKHTmUiSF2JlOcy7+oEpS4QAEvKobI5I5w== X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo05 Received: from porto.localnet (wj0425.dip.tu-dresden.de [141.76.97.169]) by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 40.1 AUTH) with ESMTPSA id U03002t2NAtUwO1 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (curve secp521r1 with 521 ECDH bits, eq. 15360 bits RSA)) (Client did not present a certificate) for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:55:30 +0100 (CET) From: "Andreas K. Huettel" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] sys-devel/autoconf: Convert from eblits into an eclass, #586424 Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:55:42 +0100 Message-ID: <3173924.ULbGtHHRMq@porto> Organization: Gentoo Linux In-Reply-To: <20170323105101.0f622f66@gentoo.org> References: <20170316093806.31977-1-mgorny@gentoo.org> <1652433.oqbzW57v8l@porto> <20170323105101.0f622f66@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Archives-Salt: f9364398-9c28-487b-881c-1687b67c5998 X-Archives-Hash: ac063700e9dd8cac20ea62b4f7c26b93 Am Donnerstag, 23. M=E4rz 2017, 10:51:01 CET schrieb Alexis Ballier: > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:41:39 +0100 >=20 > "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 21. M=E4rz 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? > >=20 > > No response. Seems like there are no real arguments for eblits. >=20 > 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" No, the argument is about "we want to clean up the tree from abusive hacks". This is the same irrationality that still insisted on EAPI=3D0 when the ent= ire=20 profile tree was already requiring EAPI=3D5 support. =2D-=20 Andreas K. H=FCttel dilfridge@gentoo.org Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice)