1 |
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:30:14 -0500 |
3 |
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> > Realistically I assume you're taking the stance "EAPI gets in the |
6 |
>> > way, lets do away with it"- if so, well, out with it, and I'll |
7 |
>> > dredge up the old logs/complaints that lead to EAPI. |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> I see EAPI as a nice thing for standardizing features that are |
10 |
>> implemented in the PM so they work identically across portage, |
11 |
>> pkgcore, and paludis. But I don't think that implementing things in |
12 |
>> the PM when they could go in an eclass is automatically the best |
13 |
>> choice. It dramatically slows down the speed of iteration, |
14 |
>> prototyping, and bug fixing. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> What is more important is that it takes the code further from devs. |
17 |
> I like to see the code I use, and be able to do anything about it if |
18 |
> necessary. Not to see a spec and three different implementation, of |
19 |
> which two use random hacks which I can't do anything about unless I |
20 |
> start to implement PM-specific anti-hacks in my code. |
21 |
|
22 |
Just as an aside, every package mangler in Gentoo is open source. I |
23 |
don't see why you can't 'see' the code it is using. Now you might say |
24 |
'ahhh C++ makes my eyes bleed' (as an aside, go read versionator |
25 |
eclass ;p) or 'eww portage is ugly' but every time I hear it I am less |
26 |
convinced that it is a good excuse. |
27 |
|
28 |
> |
29 |
> -- |
30 |
> Best regards, |
31 |
> Michał Górny |
32 |
> |