From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 130651381F3 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:49:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 962B4E0982; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:49:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9F84E0973 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:49:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.171.88.37] (107-1-212-138-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [107.1.212.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: floppym) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B59C33E049 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:49:01 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51BF763C.60703@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:49:00 -0400 From: Mike Gilbert User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 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 To: Gentoo Dev Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Calling die in a subshell References: <51BC9105.5070604@gentoo.org> <20924.37728.751450.362549@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20130615182413.2e1b2f8a@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20130615174230.33a7592c@googlemail.com> <20130615180129.72c2ca8b@googlemail.com> <51BF6D40.4040102@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <51BF6D40.4040102@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 6392329b-0f57-46e8-93a6-94717dc5bd90 X-Archives-Hash: 4c855e731ce05b88a8379379576bc40a 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 >> wrote: >>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:56:00 -0400 >>> Mike Gilbert 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.