FYI: I broke my own rule yesterday, so I guess we DO need interrevisions afterall.
Fabian On 27-11-2017 14:43:00 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 27-11-2017 14:31:29 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: > > Hi Fabian, > > > > On 11/27/2017 11:07 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I've just finished removing all few remaining interrevisions (-r0.XY) > > > ebuilds from the prefix tree. > > > > > > In the next Portage release, interrevision support will be removed. > > > > Please don't! > > Ok! > > > > I believe we no longer need to modify ebuilds so often, and keeping this > > > feature is now a deviation from mainline which we better avoid. > > > > Although I've not managed yet to submit as GLEP or so, having interrevisions > > is quite important to me - and for a meta distribution in general I believe. > > [snipping reasons as to why interrevisions are useful] > > Would it be acceptable to "ban" the interrevisions from the prefix-tree, > but keep support in Prefix Portage? > > Thanks, > Fabian > > -- > Fabian Groffen > Gentoo on a different level -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
