| 1 |
On Sunday 05 April 2009 10:26:39 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 23:58:04 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > get a *working* implementation first and *then* worry about specing |
| 4 |
> > it. once you have something running with portage, the spec should |
| 5 |
> > fall naturally out. previous multilib methods attempted to spec |
| 6 |
> > things out without any real code and they've all just died. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> You don't know whether it's working until you know what it does. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> You appear to be confusing "writing down roughly what you're doing and |
| 11 |
> figuring out approximately how it might work before you start writing |
| 12 |
> code" with "writing the spec up-front". |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
wrong. Thomas is talking about adding things directly to EAPI (EAPI-3 in this |
| 15 |
case). i dont have a problem with scratching crap out in the sand and getting |
| 16 |
feedback, but forcing it into the EAPI without actually trying it ends with |
| 17 |
exactly everything ive said. |
| 18 |
-mike |
Archives