1 |
El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 14:48 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: |
2 |
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 15:37:44 +0200 |
3 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> > > > About suggesting new item (like forcing rebuilding of other |
5 |
> > > > packages as discussed some days ago and crosscompile support |
6 |
> > > > suggested by Tommy today), I guess we need to get them voted by |
7 |
> > > > the council? |
8 |
> > > |
9 |
> > > No. You need to get a draft diff for PMS written, along with an |
10 |
> > > implementation in a package mangler of your choice and proof that it |
11 |
> > > works in practice. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > Umm, this way to work makes any suggestion for future eapis to be |
14 |
> > accepted only if they come from people able to prepare that |
15 |
> > implementation in the package manager their prefer and, then, be |
16 |
> > stalled more and more time :| |
17 |
> |
18 |
> It's more of a filter against people saying "EAPI 5 should do blah!" |
19 |
> where no-one knows what blah actually is (and if you ask five people |
20 |
> you get six answers) or how it should be implemented, or whether the |
21 |
> implementation in any way works. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> The classic example is multilib: people keep saying "EAPI n+1 should do |
24 |
> multilib!" where no-one has any idea what "do multilib" means. If you |
25 |
> asked the Council to vote on that, they'd probably say yes, because |
26 |
> multilib is good, but it's like politicians voting to say that by next |
27 |
> year everyone should own a flying car. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Your "forcing rebuild" is similar: the hard part is figuring out the |
30 |
> problem. You may *think* you know what the issue is, but other people |
31 |
> think it is something else, and in fact everyone is pretty much wrong |
32 |
> on the whole thing. Until you've a) worked out what exactly you're |
33 |
> tryin to solve (no-one has done this yet), b) worked out exactly what |
34 |
> a solution is, and c) given the solution extensive testing on real |
35 |
> packages to ensure that step a) didn't miss anything, talking to the |
36 |
> Council is a waste of everyone's time. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> You are of course welcome to try to persuade someone else to do the |
39 |
> work for you. That's what has happened for a good chunk of the current |
40 |
> EAPI 5 list, and it's been the same for earlier EAPIs. But what you |
41 |
> shouldn't do is expect a feature to be introduced just based upon a two |
42 |
> sentence description, because the best outcome there is that we end up |
43 |
> giving you something approximately related to what you wanted... |
44 |
> |
45 |
|
46 |
I thought last Zac suggestion of ABI_SLOT modified to use "SLOT=ble/bla" |
47 |
was clear enough and we reached a consensus. About what I am trying to |
48 |
solve, I have explained it multiple times in involved thread and won't |
49 |
repeat them once again. |