Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for May 28

[Tiziano Müller]

Am Mittwoch, den 27.05.2009, 20:55 +0100 schrieb Roy Bamford:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2009.05.27 13:46, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 20:57 +0200, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > > This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd &
> > 4th
> > > Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-
> > council
> > @
> > > irc.freenode.net) !
> > >
> > > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> > vote
> > > on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo
> > dev
> > > list to see.
> > >
> > > For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our
> > homepage:
> > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
> > >
> > >
> > > Following is the preliminary meeting agenda. First we'll have to
> > fill
> > > the empty spot. After a short upgrade on EAPI-3 implementation we
> > will
> > > discuss the removal of old eclasses, followed by our old friend
> > GLEP
> > 55.
> > > If we still have time we can dive into the topic of general EAPI
> > > development.
> > >
> >
> > Because Piotr recently amended GLEP55 to provide some further
> > clarification and justification as well as to present a few
> > alternatives
> > addressing some objections people have expressed, it seems to me that
> > the GLEP55 discussion should now go something like this:
> >
> > 1.  Approve the concept in principle (I think Piotr's examples
> > sufficiently show the need for something along the lines set out in
> > the
> > revised GLEP);
> >
> [snip]
> > > Cheers,
> > > Tiziano
> > Regards,
> > Ferris
> > --
> > Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
> > Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)
> >
> GLEP 55 still confuses the problem and the solution.
> Adding metadata to the filename is not required and is bad system
> design practice. Its also the first step on the slippery slope to
> adding more metadata in the future.

Ok, while thinking even more about it I have to disagree.
I agree with you that users should be mostly unaware of EAPI as such.
But I don't see ebuilds or ebuild-names as kind of a user-visible
interface the average user has to handle (even though most if not all
Gentoo users will edit or even write an ebuild at least once). Instead
he should use the package manager which hides those implementation
details. As such I don't see a problem of exporting metadata information
into the ebuild-name.



-- 
Tiziano Müller
Gentoo Linux Developer, Council Member
Areas of responsibility:
  Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin, GLEP Editor
E-Mail   : dev-zero@g.o
GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5  4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30