On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 20:13:00 +0200 Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > El jue, 20-09-2012 a las 18:55 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: > > On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 19:54:43 +0200 > > Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > That isn't necessary what could occur if the behavior changes > > > unexpectedly: as current behavior is already being assumed in > > > eclasses/ebuilds, portage couldn't change it without, before, > > > porting ebuilds/eclasses to use that new hypothetical behavior. > > > > Sure it can. Portage supports what's in the spec. If you're relying > > upon undefined behaviour, it's your problem when it stops working. > > It cannot break the tree, only square-headed people can think somebody > would force a breakage and don't try to fix it before.
Uhm, if you're relying upon a coincidence of how Portage currently happens to work, you're already broken. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
