| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:29:25 +0100 |
| 3 |
>> The majority of devs don't want to know how portage or paludis work |
| 4 |
>> internally, that's not what interests most of us. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Which is fine. But then, the majority of devs shouldn't expect to be |
| 7 |
> able to provide opinions when it comes to the more technical aspects. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
Yes, but they can smell a nasty hack when they see one; starting with the |
| 10 |
fact that the API is no longer as clean. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
>> On a somewhat related note : I noticed that among the massive thread, |
| 13 |
>> you have brought up several times the issue of cache generation, |
| 14 |
>> saying that it was a complicated process. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Maybe this process needs to be reworked before the whole EAPI issue |
| 17 |
>> can be resolved? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> That's partly what the GLEP is doing. Making it any simpler, |
| 20 |
> unfortunately, would involve either a huuuuuuge performance hit (we're |
| 21 |
> talking two orders of magnitude here) or removing metadata from the |
| 22 |
> ebuilds entirely -- neither of which are viable solutions. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
Oh, I thought this wasn't about performance? Nor indeed about cache |
| 25 |
generation. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives