...and thus breaks metadata cache. I am not aware that there are any exceptions to the present policy. > SLOT=$(usex multislot "${PV}" "2.5")
How about providing an alternative to the current code? Otherwise this bug just seems like complaining over something that works for most people in the name of ""QA""
(In reply to Samuli Suominen from comment #1) > How about providing an alternative to the current code? Otherwise this bug > just seems like complaining over something that works for most people in the > name of ""QA"" Well, dynamic variables do not break anything. So it works for people as it is. They just invalidate the cache and make portage slower.
(In reply to Markos Chandras from comment #2) > (In reply to Samuli Suominen from comment #1) > > How about providing an alternative to the current code? Otherwise this bug > > just seems like complaining over something that works for most people in the > > name of ""QA"" > > Well, dynamic variables do not break anything. So it works for people as it > is. They just invalidate the cache and make portage slower. That's not the whole story. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/85063
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 174407 ***
I don't see how that is a duplicate.
you are not even assigned, so stop messing with this bug report
there, fixed it. autoconf isn't broken, neither is the cache. the duped bug is the one to figure out the right answer. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 174407 ***
The fact that currently there is no legal way of doing this does not mean it's ok to do it illegally until there is.
(In reply to Ciaran McCreesh from comment #9) > The fact that currently there is no legal way of doing this does not mean > it's ok to do it illegally until there is. That's the first time I have to agree with you.
so sort out the referenced bug. this is not specific to autoconf. as pointed out there, this isn't a new issue (better part of a decade), and still systems are not on fire. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 174407 ***
(In reply to SpanKY from comment #11) > so sort out the referenced bug. this is not specific to autoconf. as > pointed out there, this isn't a new issue (better part of a decade), and > still systems are not on fire. > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 174407 *** Do you want to get devrel involved? You deliberately violate policies/PMS and that's the reason you are NOT assigned, because I do not expect you to do anything here. Only QA is allowed to decide if this violation is a valid one, not you.
(In reply to Samuli Suominen from comment #1) > How about providing an alternative to the current code? Otherwise this bug > just seems like complaining over something that works for most people in the > name of ""QA"" An alternative would be to copy the ebuilds to another repository (aka overlay) and set SLOT="${PV}" there. I think one end goal here would be to make "use" fatal in global scope to prevent ebuild developers from mistakenly calling it there.
(In reply to Julian Ospald (hasufell) from comment #12) ah yes, the classic "if you don't agree with me, i'll complain to devrel" angle if having an open bug makes you feel warm & fuzzy, feel free to waste time. even if there is already one open on the exact topic (you for some reason insist on ignoring). the ebuilds aren't going to change.
(In reply to SpanKY from comment #14) > (In reply to Julian Ospald (hasufell) from comment #12) > > ah yes, the classic "if you don't agree with me, i'll complain to devrel" > angle > Nope. This was about you messing with this bug report which is assigned to QA, because I want their opinion on this. > the ebuilds aren't going to change. That doesn't solely depend on your opinion, I'm afraid. If there is _consensus_ either way about this issue, then I am fine with it.
*shrug* Currently, there seems to be no PMS compliant way to achieve the desired functionality. And I think that Zac's analysis in bug 174407 comment 4 is very much to the point. That said, I don't see anything here that would need urgent QA intervention. Let's discuss things in bug 174407. I've CCed QA there. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 174407 ***
