On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:54:07 +0200
Thomas Sachau <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> > On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:16:39 +0200
> > Thomas Sachau <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> Since there is again no response at all, it seems like everyone is
> >> ok with this, so i will propose to add this to the next council
> >> agenda for EAPI-5 addition.
> > Got a diff for PMS?
> Last time you only requested enough details for implementation, you
> did not require a PMS diff, so i wrote more details for the
> If you, Brian (for pkgcore) and zmedico accept this for EAPI-5, i
> might look into creating a diff against PMS but until then, i dont
> want to waste my time, especially since noone commented on the
> implementation details or the technical details and any change would
> require even more work to rework/adjust the PMS diff.
Here's the thing: I doubt the lack of feedback is down to everyone
being happy with the proposal. I strongly suspect it's because people
look at it and go "huh?". You've provided exactly the kind of
information that no-one cares about (e.g. long lists of variable names,
which will probably just come from a var in profiles), and none of what
I think you'll get a better response if you write this up in GLEP form
(i.e. motivation, examples etc) to describe to ebuild developers what's
in it for them, and as a diff against PMS so that package mangler
authors can work out exactly what you're saying.