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