On pon, 2017-04-10 at 17:33 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 22:43:18 +0200 > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > The difference is in quality expectations. We did Python this way to > > make sure things will work, and all obvious breakage will immediately > > be caught. Your alternative does not provide for that. > > Add a new Java version and recompiling packages with it, will also > immediately show breakage if any.
Except that the packages don't get recompiled unless you take manual action to recompile them. If you fail at this action, you may end up having broken software because the rebuild has not been complete. > > > > Anything in Gentoo that goes against the status quo gets heavy > > > resistance and thus Gentoo does not change. But continues on with > > > the status quo.... > > > > > > > You are talking *nonsense*. The python-r1 was *against* status quo. We > > changed it. Now you want the old status quo back. > > Regardless of new eclass, the TARGETS remain. Things did not change > from a user perspective. Recently packaging some ebuilds, the > COMPAT/VERSION does not seem to have changed. Despite what ever > changes to the eclass. > TARGETS *have been added*. This is *the new way*. This *did change*. I have no clue why you pretend it's some ancient status quo when the remnants of old code were removed two months ago. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
