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