13.10.2016 16:53, Ulrich Mueller пишет:
> Hi all,
>
> I suggest that we ban the dolib and libopts commands in EAPI 7.
>
> Rationale:
> 1. There are about 60 instances of dolib in the tree. At least one
>third of them appears to be wrong (e.g., should be replaced by
>dolib.so for correct m
On Do, 2016-10-13 at 15:53 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I suggest that we ban the dolib and libopts commands in EAPI 7.
>
> Rationale:
> 1. There are about 60 instances of dolib in the tree. At least one
> third of them appears to be wrong (e.g., should be replaced by
> dolib.
On 10/13/2016 06:53 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I suggest that we ban the dolib and libopts commands in EAPI 7.
>
> Rationale:
> 1. There are about 60 instances of dolib in the tree. At least one
>third of them appears to be wrong (e.g., should be replaced by
>dolib.so for cor
On 13/10/16 15:04, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:53:16 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I suggest that we ban the dolib and libopts commands in EAPI 7.
>>
>> Rationale:
>> 1. There are about 60 instances of dolib in the tree. At least one
>>third of them appears
On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:53:16 +0200
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I suggest that we ban the dolib and libopts commands in EAPI 7.
>
> Rationale:
> 1. There are about 60 instances of dolib in the tree. At least one
>third of them appears to be wrong (e.g., should be replaced by
>dol
Hi all,
I suggest that we ban the dolib and libopts commands in EAPI 7.
Rationale:
1. There are about 60 instances of dolib in the tree. At least one
third of them appears to be wrong (e.g., should be replaced by
dolib.so for correct mode).
2. libopts affects only dolib, while the more spec
