| 1 |
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 06:48:31PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:27:32 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > As for 'blatant hack', if you've got no users nor preexisting ebuild |
| 5 |
> > data, you can design whatever you want- it's quite easy to call |
| 6 |
> > things blatant hacks if you can design things from scratch and not |
| 7 |
> > worry about compatibility. This is a form of armchair quarterbacking. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> No it isn't, since we've proposed a working alternative that doesn't |
| 10 |
> have any of the defects that EAPI in its current form does. |
| 11 |
<snip> |
| 12 |
> You appear to be confusing "providing a better replacement that we can |
| 13 |
> use immediately that doesn't have any of these problems" with |
| 14 |
> "bitching". |
| 15 |
<snip> |
| 16 |
> That's ok. We can migrate to an even better solution now. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
And by "right now", I assume you meant to say "minimally a year down |
| 19 |
the line after a portage is stabled supporting g55 semantics and |
| 20 |
resolving any breakage it's usage induces". You know, the same issue |
| 21 |
EAPI itself had to go through to ensure that people had a reasonable |
| 22 |
chance of getting an appropriate error message and support being in |
| 23 |
place. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Accuracy in details is very useful, including stating the full picture |
| 26 |
rather than just the parts you think sell your particular view. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> The *fact* is, you can't use new version formats with any of your |
| 30 |
> proposals, |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
New version formats aren't magically usable the moment g55 lands. At |
| 33 |
the very least you're forgetting about bundled glsa's and their |
| 34 |
knowledge of atom formats. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Suppose the next comment will be "they suck, throw them out", but so |
| 37 |
it goes. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Realistically, 'the fact is' that a specific scm tag is preferable to |
| 40 |
-9999. The reality is that people and the tools have been working |
| 41 |
around it without huge issues for a long while. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Would it be nice having some -scm tag? Sure. Is it worth the |
| 44 |
disruption impementing it, and it's dependencies requires? That |
| 45 |
arguement you've still not managed to convince people of. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> and using new global scope functionality or new bash |
| 49 |
> functionality introduces all kinds of nasty difficulties and arbitrary |
| 50 |
> restrictions of which developers have to be intimately aware. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
The restrictions are "no new global functionality can set or influence |
| 53 |
EAPI". Basically the same restriction you forced on eclasses. It's |
| 54 |
nasty and arbitrary when I state it, but some how it is sane when you |
| 55 |
propose it the same thing? |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
The thing you're ignoring out of this g55 idiocy is that people don't |
| 59 |
particularly seem to want it. There has been an extremely vocal |
| 60 |
subgroup of paludis/exherbo devs pushing for it while everyone else |
| 61 |
seems to have less than an interest in it. That's generalizing a bit, |
| 62 |
but is reasonably accurate. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Pretty much, scream all you want, if people don't like it it's not |
| 65 |
going to go anywhere. So... keep fighting windmills, or do something |
| 66 |
useful and use what is available to you (existing EAPI semantics). |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
_EITHER WAY_, rather than having g33 get beat down for unrelated |
| 69 |
reasons by people screaming they want their pony/g55, g33 can proceed |
| 70 |
despite claims to the contrary, and it doesn't require g55 as |
| 71 |
ciaran/crew have claimed. |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
Split a thread if you really want to rehash g55 also, rather than the |
| 74 |
thread jacking that is underway. |
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
~brian |
Archives