| 1 |
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 22:14:57 -0400 |
| 2 |
Jim Ramsay <lack@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > What about the PMS EAPI 1 documentation do you consider 'not |
| 4 |
> > proper'? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I was personally expecting to see some sort of section called "EAPI-1" |
| 7 |
> that contains something like: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> "EAPI-1 consists of EAPI-0 with the following features added..." |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Then an explanation of each change and the appropriate syntax. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I did see how EAPI-1 is integrated throughout the document, which is |
| 14 |
> valuable in a different way - but it's harder to answer the question |
| 15 |
> "What exactly does EAPI-1 add to EAPI-0?" |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The way it is now is valuable to package manage people, since they need |
| 18 |
to know things like "my parser must be able to do foo, bar and baz", |
| 19 |
not "my parser must be able to do foo" and then hidden away later "the |
| 20 |
parser must also do bar and baz for EAPI 1". |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Perhaps I'll try sending you a patch with something like that, if I |
| 23 |
> have time, and if it would be appreciated. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
We've discussed having a purely informative appendix with a summary of |
| 26 |
changes between EAPIs, and references to all the relevant sections. But |
| 27 |
no-one's ever wanted it enough to submit a patch... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives