On Tuesday 18 January 2005 15:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > No, it's the increase in nonsense on this list that's making me worse > than normal.
and > Sure, if you're going to make huge changes for different major versions > of the package, have a foo-1 and a foo-2 eclass. This doesn't involve > any kind of portage versioning, however, and so is totally irrelevant to > the discussion. Those are your opinions, and you're entitled to them. However, as the discussion started off with asking for a minimising of risk when core packages are changed, I think my contribution isn't irrelevant. You get to decide those things for yourself, but let others make up their own mind, eh? ;-) For what it's worth, I don't see any benefit to adding any new support to Portage for versioned eclasses. I think a policy requiring devs to use versioned eclasses would be the better way to go; except no-one else actually uses them, so I doubt the policy would be popular or successful. Best regards, Stu -- Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/ GnuPG key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C -- -- [email protected] mailing list
