Re: [gentoo-dev] Calling die in a subshell

[Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org>]

On 6/17/2013 4:10 PM, vivo75@gmail.com wrote:
> On 06/15/13 19:02, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
>> <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:56:00 -0400
>>> Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> If we find that all known implementations of PMS/EAPI 4 have
>>>> implemented a certain behavior, making a change to that version of PMS
>>>> to properly document the behavior seems reasonable.
>>> Part of the point of EAPI stability is that it doesn't just apply to
>>> current versions of package manglers.
>>>
>> So look back at the first versions which implemented EAPI 4 support,
>> and see what the behavior was implemented at the point in time.
>>
> it make sense but it stretch things a lot.
> 
> Is it possible to:
> - keep an open bug (tracker) on named eclasses/ebuilds, so we (users and
> devs) know that there is a (teoric) fallacy
> - approve it for EAPI 6
> - move all the eapi/ebuilds to EAPI 6
> - close the bugs as WONT-FIX
> 
> In any case it should be easy to port an ebuild from EAPI4 to 6, if
> gentoers want to keep things simple it could be more a version 5a than 6
> 
> regards

What on earth is a "teoric fallacy"?

I'm fine with waiting for EAPI 6 if necessary.

I would not find a tracker bug very useful, and have no intention of
starting one.