| 1 |
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:29:25 +0100 |
| 2 |
Rémi Cardona <remi@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh a écrit : |
| 4 |
> > Developers have to know about EAPIs. It's part of knowing how to |
| 5 |
> > write ebuilds. There's no way around that -- if you're writing |
| 6 |
> > ebuilds, you have to know what you are and aren't allowed to do in |
| 7 |
> > those ebuilds. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Then please try to keep things simple :) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
*Using* EAPIs is simple. *Designing* them, not so much. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> The majority of devs don't want to know how portage or paludis work |
| 14 |
> internally, that's not what interests most of us. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Which is fine. But then, the majority of devs shouldn't expect to be |
| 17 |
able to provide opinions when it comes to the more technical aspects. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> On a somewhat related note : I noticed that among the massive thread, |
| 20 |
> you have brought up several times the issue of cache generation, |
| 21 |
> saying that it was a complicated process. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Maybe this process needs to be reworked before the whole EAPI issue |
| 24 |
> can be resolved? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
That's partly what the GLEP is doing. Making it any simpler, |
| 27 |
unfortunately, would involve either a huuuuuuge performance hit (we're |
| 28 |
talking two orders of magnitude here) or removing metadata from the |
| 29 |
ebuilds entirely -- neither of which are viable solutions. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives