On Monday 29 April 2013 15:17:40 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:09:36 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > > As you can see in the bug, we're not discussing anything related to > > > EAPI 0 behaviour, so this argument is irrelevant. We're discussing > > > a change in a later EAPI, where the change had nothing to say about > > > ordering. > > > > There's a difference between 'we' and 'you alone'. > > Well yes, you're trying to ignore the actual issue and go around > retroactively breaking things rather than just change the wording in > EAPI 6. But that doesn't change the fact that the actual bug in the > ebuild wouldn't be showing up if it were EAPI 0.
claiming breakage is a red herring. i'll wager that clarifying PMS to match realistic intentions and the largest PM won't break a single package. appending args over the econf args is asinine. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
