On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:24:13 +0200 > Tom Wijsman <tom...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> What does it take to change future specifications to guarantee this? > > You can have it from EAPI 6 onwards. > >> What's holding this from becoming guaranteed? Why not fix the specs? > > The specs accurately reflect Portage behaviour at the time the specs > were approved. The point of a stable EAPI is that once approved it > doesn't change. >
>From the council log, the main objection I saw was that we didn't want to change the behavior of existing ebuilds. In this particular case, we know that Portage has been properly handling die in a subshell since at least EAPI 4 was approved. I don't use Paludis, but we may have a similar situation there. 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.
