On 6/17/2013 4:10 PM, viv...@gmail.com wrote: > On 06/15/13 19:02, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Ciaran McCreesh >> <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:56:00 -0400 >>> Mike Gilbert <flop...@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.
