Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RFC: Make 10.0 profiles EAPI-2 'compliant'

[Chip Parker <infowolfe@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Steven J
Long<slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
>> I look forward to seeing Funtoo's creation of EAPI funtoo-2.
>>
> Well judging by your EAPI-2, I'd prefer it. Apart from USE-deps, there's
> been no discussion apart from under your supervision on bugzie.
> nonfatal? (or w/e it's called.) Who came up with that idea, and why did you
> ignore the --or-die option that's already been discussed?
>
> If you want exceptions, try C++ (better than you're currently doing.) This
> is shellscript.
>
> I'd like to moot to the Council that we hold off on EAPI-2 profiles, and go
> with EAPI-1 plus USE-deps and BASH-3.2_p17 (honestly, you thought 4 was
> ready?!) til we get this mess sorted.
>

How about we just ignore ciaranm because he's got no valid complaints
or objections to this particular portage behavior as shown in
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273261#c28.

Relevant portion excerpted here for your convenience:
"Additionally, in
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/pym/portage.py?rev=3495&view=markup
(hint: look for "recursive=1") and
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133740, with both predating the
initial RFC for PMS sent to gentoo-dev mailing list, this behavior is
discussed and shown to be a design feature, not a flaw or lack of QA
in portage. This proves with certainty that it is PMS and the views of
the reporter of this bug that are flawed, and not the behavior of
portage."

Problem solved.