1 |
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:55 +0200 |
2 |
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> Also, if I remember correctly, Tommy asked for this some months ago, |
4 |
> you asked for what he sent some days ago and now you require more and |
5 |
> more work to delay things to be implemented. |
6 |
|
7 |
I still haven't seen a clear description of exactly what should be |
8 |
changed and why. I've also not seen a description of exactly what |
9 |
problem is being solved, nor a discussion of the relative merits of |
10 |
implementing a solution to whatever that problem is. All I've seen is a |
11 |
mess of code that "gets it working" in Portage (which isn't the same as |
12 |
"implements it for Portage") and a big wall of text that contains lots |
13 |
that no-one needs to know and little of what's important. This needs to |
14 |
go through the GLEP process, and it needs a PMS diff. |
15 |
|
16 |
In case you're not aware, the first time Gentoo did multilib, it was |
17 |
done as a series of random changes to Portage that no-one really |
18 |
thought through or understood. As you can see, that didn't work... |
19 |
|
20 |
> I also don't understand why Gentoo is forced to stick with old ways |
21 |
> of doing things until new EAPI is approved |
22 |
|
23 |
That's not what's going on here. The issue is that there might be one |
24 |
person who understands what "the new way of doing things", but he |
25 |
hasn't told us what he thinks that is. Once we get a proper |
26 |
explanation, getting an EAPI out doesn't take long. |
27 |
|
28 |
The main problem here isn't even EAPI related. Ebuild developers don't |
29 |
even know what they'll be expected, required or able to do for multilib. |
30 |
|
31 |
> while Exherbo is free to implement and use things like that special |
32 |
> way of handling DEPENDENCIES without waiting for any EAPI to be |
33 |
> accepted... |
34 |
|
35 |
The DEPENDENCIES proposal predates Exherbo. Gentoo originally didn't |
36 |
have it because Portage couldn't implement it. Now it doesn't have it |
37 |
because it's too controversial to get it approved. Exherbo does have it |
38 |
because it was carefully discussed, compared to alternatives, planned |
39 |
out, tested, accepted by the expendable figurehead, and then rolled out. |
40 |
|
41 |
> or maybe I am wrong and people is able to use any PM manager |
42 |
> compliant with EAPI on exherbo without issues? |
43 |
|
44 |
If anyone ever manages to come up with another package mangler that can |
45 |
get close to implementing what Exherbo needs, then sure. |
46 |
|
47 |
-- |
48 |
Ciaran McCreesh |