Re: [gentoo-dev] About what would be included in EAPI5

[Pacho Ramos]

El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 14:48 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 15:37:44 +0200
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:
> > > > About suggesting new item (like forcing rebuilding of other
> > > > packages as discussed some days ago and crosscompile support
> > > > suggested by Tommy today), I guess we need to get them voted by
> > > > the council?
> > >
> > > No. You need to get a draft diff for PMS written, along with an
> > > implementation in a package mangler of your choice and proof that it
> > > works in practice.
> >
> > Umm, this way to work makes any suggestion for future eapis to be
> > accepted only if they come from people able to prepare that
> > implementation in the package manager their prefer and, then, be
> > stalled more and more time :|
>
> It's more of a filter against people saying "EAPI 5 should do blah!"
> where no-one knows what blah actually is (and if you ask five people
> you get six answers) or how it should be implemented, or whether the
> implementation in any way works.
>
> The classic example is multilib: people keep saying "EAPI n+1 should do
> multilib!" where no-one has any idea what "do multilib" means. If you
> asked the Council to vote on that, they'd probably say yes, because
> multilib is good, but it's like politicians voting to say that by next
> year everyone should own a flying car.
>
> Your "forcing rebuild" is similar: the hard part is figuring out the
> problem. You may *think* you know what the issue is, but other people
> think it is something else, and in fact everyone is pretty much wrong
> on the whole thing. Until you've a) worked out what exactly you're
> tryin to solve (no-one has done this yet), b) worked out exactly what
> a solution is, and c) given the solution extensive testing on real
> packages to ensure that step a) didn't miss anything, talking to the
> Council is a waste of everyone's time.
>
> You are of course welcome to try to persuade someone else to do the
> work for you. That's what has happened for a good chunk of the current
> EAPI 5 list, and it's been the same for earlier EAPIs. But what you
> shouldn't do is expect a feature to be introduced just based upon a two
> sentence description, because the best outcome there is that we end up
> giving you something approximately related to what you wanted...
>

I thought last Zac suggestion of ABI_SLOT modified to use "SLOT=ble/bla"
was clear enough and we reached a consensus. About what I am trying to
solve, I have explained it multiple times in involved thread and won't
repeat them once again.