| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> Please don't comment any further until you understand how this whole |
| 3 |
> thing works. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I think this is a bit of an unrealistic expectation. This change |
| 7 |
impacts EVERYBODY - devs, users, etc. To expect people not to comment |
| 8 |
on it simply because they're not qualified to write a package manager is |
| 9 |
a bit naive. Like it or not you do need to obtain some kind of general |
| 10 |
agreement before making a change of this magnitude. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Even so - I'm impressed about how civil this discussion has actually |
| 13 |
remained. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Feel free to continue to make your points, but a GLEP requires some kind |
| 16 |
of census - not just silence after everybody gets tired of hitting |
| 17 |
reply. If somebody doesn't know what they're talking about - persuade |
| 18 |
them - don't just tell them to be quiet. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I usually like to look at stuff like this in terms of pros and cons. So |
| 21 |
here are the pros and cons I can see regarding this change: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
PRO: |
| 24 |
Very simple to determine the EAPI of an ebuild - regardless of what is |
| 25 |
inside |
| 26 |
Works with existing PMs |
| 27 |
Simple |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
CON: |
| 30 |
Yet another value to be parsed out of an increasingly-complex filename. |
| 31 |
Doesn't look pretty :) |
| 32 |
Makes a low-level detail more visible to users. |
| 33 |
You can't make a wild change to how EAPIs are specified - since old PMs |
| 34 |
will expect it to be in the filename in a particular format. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
The other option that seems popular is just continuing with EAPI=1 or |
| 37 |
whatever in the file (likely with a restriction on format that makes it |
| 38 |
parsable without BASH). I see these pros/cons for this solution: |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
PRO: |
| 41 |
Very simple to determine the EAPI of an ebuild - regardless of what is |
| 42 |
inside |
| 43 |
Works with existing PMs |
| 44 |
Simple |
| 45 |
Doesn't add another field to the filename - reducing complexity |
| 46 |
Not very visible to users |
| 47 |
Looks pretty :) |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
CON: |
| 50 |
You can't make a wild change to how EAPIs are specified - since old PMs |
| 51 |
will expect it to be inside the file in a particular format. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
I don't see how the latter is any worse than the former - its main |
| 54 |
limitation applies to both methods - just in a different place. I think |
| 55 |
you'd get far more consensus to the latter approach. And if for |
| 56 |
whatever reason this fails way down the road it could always be moved to |
| 57 |
the filename at that time. |
Archives