On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 22:51:25 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:39:43 +0200 > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > The historical mess is not relevant anymore. Is there a single > > > > real case when IUSE does not contain *at least* the ebuild-set > > > > IUSE? > > > > > > The historical mess applies to things under EAPI control. If you > > > want stronger guarantees, you know how to propose things for a > > > future EAPI. > > > > You didn't answer my question. > > Well no. The point of having a spec for all of this is that we don't > have to spend a long time carefully checking things to answer this > kind of question every single time a topic is discussed (and this > topic has come up quite a few times). You can just look back and see > the justification for the spec wording that was given. Then, if you > want a change, you can get it in a future EAPI, without us having to > worry about working out exactly what the impact will be. Yes, it did. And you are consistently wasting your and ours time complaining that we're doing illegal stuff without trying to bring even a single solution to it. Do you even care? Or are you just complaining because you don't have anything useful to do? If you care, then you should consider finding a good solution which will fix the code now, instead of saying 'it is illegal' and 'we can fix it in an awful way in next 10 years'. > Or to put it another way, the point of having a spec is not to give > you something to argue about every time it is brought up. You know, good specs come with a thing called 'rationale' for various points. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
