| 1 |
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:55:37 +0200 |
| 2 |
hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Currently you seem to have focused more on distutils when writing |
| 5 |
> python-r1 which makes this eclass a bit raw. |
| 6 |
> Waiting for other developers to file feature requests instead of |
| 7 |
> figuring out those yourself before they even consider porting their |
| 8 |
> ebuild to your new eclasses seems like a questionable policy to me. |
| 9 |
> They might not be too excited about it to start discussions and |
| 10 |
> feature requests just to switch from an already working implementation. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
As you may have failed to notice, most of Python packages actually are |
| 13 |
using distutils. Thus, the core goal for distutils-r1/python-r1 was to |
| 14 |
correctly support those packages. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Now that distutils is supported well, I can start thinking about |
| 17 |
supporting random hackish build systems. I will review redshift and |
| 18 |
give you my thoughts. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Just note that your attitude is not motivating at all. I haven't killed |
| 21 |
any of your kitten or forced anyone to use python-r1. Most of you |
| 22 |
didn't even care to give a single word of feedback throughout |
| 23 |
the development process, so your position of 'this eclass doesn't give |
| 24 |
me shiny functions I want' is at least impolite. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Best regards, |
| 28 |
Michał Górny |
Archives