| 1 |
2009/5/27 Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o>: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 27 May 2009 22:57:25 Joe Peterson wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> > Gentoo should not repeat the VHS vs Betamax war. For those who do not |
| 5 |
>> > remember, VHS was the better marketed but inferior technical solution |
| 6 |
>> > that won the standards war for domestic Video recorders. |
| 7 |
>> > |
| 8 |
>> :) Yep. And bad design decisions can haunt is for a long time. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Actually, once we add the current-glep55 changes we have no way of sanely |
| 11 |
> undoing them if we should realize that they don't work out for us ... |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> ... unless we do horrible things like forbidding it, which would cause the |
| 14 |
> same errors we are trying to hide now. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> So unless we have a plan for mid-term future changes I don't see why we would |
| 17 |
> want the current GLEP55 - it's a one-way change in the current state. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
How is it one-way exactly? You can do pretty much anything you want in |
| 20 |
a new EAPI (that's the point). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
>> My preference is the one-time .ebuild->.eb change, and putting the EAPI on |
| 23 |
>> the first line, like a #!shebang. Very easy to extract, and good design. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> My preference is freezing the rsync tree, storing all referenced distfiles on |
| 26 |
> at least one mirror, then change the rsync path. |
| 27 |
> That way all "old" users get the last sane upgrade position (...) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
And bugs and security vulnerabilities too. Or do you propose |
| 30 |
maintaining multiple trees at the same time? I think one of the main |
| 31 |
points of EAPI was to avoid doing exactly that. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Best Regards, |
| 35 |
Piotr Jaroszyński |
Archives