1 |
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:25:10 +0200 |
2 |
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> Then, looks clear to me that the way to get things approved in newer |
4 |
> EAPIs is not clear enough as looks like a lot of devs (like me) don't |
5 |
> know them (for example, when things to be added to EAPI need also a |
6 |
> GLEP and a PMS diff, also the needing to get an implementation for any |
7 |
> package manager). |
8 |
|
9 |
That's very much a judgement call. If a feature is "easy", low impact |
10 |
and uncontroversial, you can ask for it on IRC, the mailing lists or |
11 |
bugzilla, and chances are someone will do all the work for you. If it's |
12 |
a big feature with broad impact requiring lots of changes, you need to |
13 |
do however much work is necessary such that a) the people working on |
14 |
PMS understand it well enough to document it, b) developers understand |
15 |
it well enough to know what it involves for them, c) the Council can |
16 |
compare and contrast it with other proposals, and d) it can be |
17 |
implemented. |
18 |
|
19 |
The "implement it in a package manager" thing is because of what |
20 |
happened with REQUIRED_USE. It hadn't been implemented previously, and |
21 |
as it turns out it has some fairly hefty usability issues. |
22 |
|
23 |
> > > I also don't understand why Gentoo is forced to stick with old |
24 |
> > > ways of doing things until new EAPI is approved |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> > That's not what's going on here. The issue is that there might be |
27 |
> > one person who understands what "the new way of doing things", but |
28 |
> > he hasn't told us what he thinks that is. Once we get a proper |
29 |
> > explanation, getting an EAPI out doesn't take long. |
30 |
> > |
31 |
> |
32 |
> But you must confess that old problems like multilib support, force |
33 |
> package rebuilding or optional dep support are still pending while |
34 |
> still needing and, the problem with the way things are discussed now |
35 |
> is that some day anybody arises the problem again, other one demands |
36 |
> more things to be provided, a discussion starts, the problem gets |
37 |
> stalled... one year later the same problem arises again. There is |
38 |
> clearly a lack of information to the rest of developers about how to |
39 |
> propose anything to get accepted for next EAPI. |
40 |
|
41 |
The reason those are still pending is because no-one knows what the |
42 |
*problem* is, let alone the solution. That's not an EAPI issue, it's a |
43 |
developers saying "I want a flying unicorn!" issue. |
44 |
|
45 |
> Then, you accept exherbo is not forced to *only* follow EAPI while you |
46 |
> force Gentoo and portage to only support features approved in an EAPI? |
47 |
|
48 |
I think you have a severe misunderstanding of what the EAPI process is |
49 |
about here... It's not about forcing anything. The point of the EAPI |
50 |
process is to allow Gentoo to roll things out without requiring |
51 |
developers to rewrite all their ebuilds every few months (which |
52 |
happens on Exherbo, incidentally), and without breaking user systems. |
53 |
|
54 |
-- |
55 |
Ciaran McCreesh |