1 |
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:30:14 -0500 |
2 |
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> > Realistically I assume you're taking the stance "EAPI gets in the |
5 |
> > way, lets do away with it"- if so, well, out with it, and I'll |
6 |
> > dredge up the old logs/complaints that lead to EAPI. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> I see EAPI as a nice thing for standardizing features that are |
9 |
> implemented in the PM so they work identically across portage, |
10 |
> pkgcore, and paludis. But I don't think that implementing things in |
11 |
> the PM when they could go in an eclass is automatically the best |
12 |
> choice. It dramatically slows down the speed of iteration, |
13 |
> prototyping, and bug fixing. |
14 |
|
15 |
What is more important is that it takes the code further from devs. |
16 |
I like to see the code I use, and be able to do anything about it if |
17 |
necessary. Not to see a spec and three different implementation, of |
18 |
which two use random hacks which I can't do anything about unless I |
19 |
start to implement PM-specific anti-hacks in my code. |
20 |
|
21 |
-- |
22 |
Best regards, |
23 |
Michał Górny |