| 1 |
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:50:36 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> >>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > GLEP 55 is simple, it solves all the problems we have (including the |
| 5 |
> > version issue, which everyone is conveniently ignoring), it doesn't |
| 6 |
> > require us to guess what's going to happen next and it can be |
| 7 |
> > implemented immediately. That's a rather big deal. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The "header comment" solution solves all these issues too, without |
| 10 |
> embedding unrelated information in the filename [1]. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
No it doesn't. See the "conveniently ignoring" part you're conveniently |
| 13 |
ignoring. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> It can be implemented immediately, too. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
No it can't, since existing package managers don't handle it. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> The argument that was always used against such solutions was that |
| 20 |
> it would "hurt performance". However, when the council asked for |
| 21 |
> benchmarks that would prove that point, nobody could provide them. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
No, the argument was that such solutions didn't solve the full problem. |
| 24 |
Performance issues were secondary, and were picked up upon as a way of |
| 25 |
avoiding the whole "nothing else solves all the problems" thing. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> [1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filename> "The filename is metadata |
| 28 |
> about a file; a string used to uniquely identify a file stored on the |
| 29 |
> file system." |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
By that argument, there's no point in having a ".ebuild" there either. |
| 32 |
Please don't continue the bad trend of posting irrelevant Wikipedia |
| 33 |
links as footnotes as though the primary issue should be anything other |
| 34 |
than a comparison of solutions to a technical problem [1]. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spork |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives