On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:49:55 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:41:56 +0300 > Andrew Savchenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:14:23 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > > Dnia 22 lipca 2016 13:00:42 CEST, Andrew Savchenko <[email protected]> > > > napisał(a): > > > >On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:12:12 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > [...] > > > >> Few important QA notes: > > > >> > > > >> 1. < is lexicographical comparison, so e.g. 1.6.2.2 < 1.6.18.2 gives > > > >> false, > > > > > > > >Thanks, fixed. > > > > > > > >> 2. REPLACING_VERSIONS can have more than one value, > > > > > > > >While it can indeed, I see no way for this to happen if package > > > >hasn't and never had multiple slots. > > > > > > Wrong. PMS specifically requests you to account for such a possibility. > > > > Common sence must prevail over formal approaches. While PMS is > > great, it is not perfect in all possible aspects, and this one is > > one of them. > > > > I see no point in trashing ebuilds with dead code that will never > > be used. Though if there will be a PMS or eclass function with > > "proper" implementation, I don't mind, since extra code will be > > moved from ebuild elsewhere. > > So are you officially refusing to follow the PMS based on your idea of > 'common sense' and ignoring the specific reasons it was written like > that? I should put my QA hat on, and request official action upon your > refusal. No, but I do ignore threats, at least for the time being.
Best regards, Andrew Savchenko
pgpXXfXwy4VYh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
