| 1 |
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:54:07 +0200 |
| 2 |
Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb: |
| 4 |
> > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:16:39 +0200 |
| 5 |
> > Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> Since there is again no response at all, it seems like everyone is |
| 7 |
> >> ok with this, so i will propose to add this to the next council |
| 8 |
> >> agenda for EAPI-5 addition. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Got a diff for PMS? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Last time you only requested enough details for implementation, you |
| 13 |
> did not require a PMS diff, so i wrote more details for the |
| 14 |
> implementation. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> If you, Brian (for pkgcore) and zmedico accept this for EAPI-5, i |
| 17 |
> might look into creating a diff against PMS but until then, i dont |
| 18 |
> want to waste my time, especially since noone commented on the |
| 19 |
> implementation details or the technical details and any change would |
| 20 |
> require even more work to rework/adjust the PMS diff. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Here's the thing: I doubt the lack of feedback is down to everyone |
| 23 |
being happy with the proposal. I strongly suspect it's because people |
| 24 |
look at it and go "huh?". You've provided exactly the kind of |
| 25 |
information that no-one cares about (e.g. long lists of variable names, |
| 26 |
which will probably just come from a var in profiles), and none of what |
| 27 |
really matters. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I think you'll get a better response if you write this up in GLEP form |
| 30 |
(i.e. motivation, examples etc) to describe to ebuild developers what's |
| 31 |
in it for them, and as a diff against PMS so that package mangler |
| 32 |
authors can work out exactly what you're saying. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives