| 1 |
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:30:14 -0500 |
| 2 |
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > Realistically I assume you're taking the stance "EAPI gets in the |
| 5 |
> > way, lets do away with it"- if so, well, out with it, and I'll |
| 6 |
> > dredge up the old logs/complaints that lead to EAPI. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I see EAPI as a nice thing for standardizing features that are |
| 9 |
> implemented in the PM so they work identically across portage, |
| 10 |
> pkgcore, and paludis. But I don't think that implementing things in |
| 11 |
> the PM when they could go in an eclass is automatically the best |
| 12 |
> choice. It dramatically slows down the speed of iteration, |
| 13 |
> prototyping, and bug fixing. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
What is more important is that it takes the code further from devs. |
| 16 |
I like to see the code I use, and be able to do anything about it if |
| 17 |
necessary. Not to see a spec and three different implementation, of |
| 18 |
which two use random hacks which I can't do anything about unless I |
| 19 |
start to implement PM-specific anti-hacks in my code. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Best regards, |
| 23 |
Michał Górny |
Archives