On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:59:59 +0100 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Dnia 2014-01-26, o godz. 21:35:27 > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> napisał(a): > > On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:21:44 -0800 > > Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > Sorry, I work on Portage. What I'm saying is that We are free to > > > change the behavior of *portage* now; rather than waiting for a > > > new EAPI. If an ebuild needs to define EAPI=eapi-next to > > > 'correctly' use XDG_*, well that is someone else's can of worms. > > > > Changing Portage to hide the issue is a bad idea, since it makes it > > harder for developers to notice that that's a problem they need to > > fix. Although maybe you could set XDG_* to something that will give > > a big noisy sandbox violation for current EAPIs? > > Yes, because instantly breaking a few dozen ebuilds in stable tree for > the sake of proving a point is always a good idea.
It's not about proving a point, it's about fixing existing bugs. It's changing a hard-to-see error into an easy-to-see error, so that it can be fixed more quickly. This change would introduce no new breakage, since anything affected by it is already broken. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
