Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@...>
Subject: Re: new `usex` helper
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 06:34:38 +0100
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 21:02:28 -0500
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote:
> On 17:56 Tue 13 Sep     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > useful enough for EAPI ?  or should i just stick it into
> > eutils.eclass ?  OR BOTH !?
> 
> I prefer to avoid EAPI whenever possible, as it just makes things
> slower and more complex.

Sticking it in an EAPI *shouldn't* be slow and more complex. There are
three reasons why it is, and they should all be within Gentoo's
ability to solve.

The first reason is that when we did what was then called EAPI 3,
several Council members refused to put in more than one hour's work
every month. To get an EAPI out quickly, we need Council members who
are prepared to do a bit of homework, and to read proposals before a
meeting and to comment on mailing lists rather than only bringing up
questions (most of which have already been answered on the lists) at
meetings. That shouldn't be too much to ask, and if it is, Council
members should be prepared to delegate.

The second is that it's impossible to get an accurate estimate from the
Portage people for how long it will take to implement something. We
were assured before the then-EAPI-3 proposals were submitted to the
Council that all would be easy and quick to implement in Portage. We
were told after approval that implementation would take a month, when
it took a year to get just partial implementations of some features.
This needs to be addressed -- to a certain extent we can drop features,
but EAPI 4 currently has nasty problems (prefix flag needs to be in
IUSE, and people are refusing to do that) due to one of two
interdependent features being dropped (strict IUSE) without the
standard wording for the other (use dependency defaults) being changed.

The third is that there are a few people intent on preventing any new
EAPI from ever happening. The solution here is to tell them that the
decision has been made, that Gentoo is going to use EAPIs and a
specification whether they like it or not, and that they can either help
or keep quiet. No-one has the time to deal with a small group of
individuals who pop up and yell "PMS sucks! EAPIs are bad! Portage is
reality! Code to an implementation not a standard!" every time anyone
asks for a new feature.

None of this should be difficult.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Attachment:
signature.asc (PGP signature)
Replies:
Re: new `usex` helper
-- Donnie Berkholz
References:
new `usex` helper
-- Mike Frysinger
Re: new `usex` helper
-- Donnie Berkholz
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: new `usex` helper
Next by thread:
Re: new `usex` helper
Previous by date:
Re: [PATCH eutils] Introduce has_iuse() for IUSE checks.
Next by date:
Re: [RFC] obs eclasses


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.