On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:42:41 -0800
Brian Harring <ferringb@...> wrote:
> Bluntly, you would be pissed if you got stuck having long term
> support for an experimental eapi I split w/out consult- why do you
> think that the reverse wouldn't hold?
No, if a large project such as, say, the Gentoo KDE project, had asked
you for support for a well documented EAPI and you had provided it, I
would have also implemented that EAPI in Paludis.
kdebuild-1 was not done without consultation. It was the result of a
considerable amount of work from an official Gentoo project, and it was
a well defined, published standard. It was in no way an experiment.
> Regardless, if you didn't plan for phasing out an experimental eapi,
> it's not the mainstream eapi's problem- it's your mess to clean up.
kdebuild-1 was not experimental.
> If we did as you asked, we would have to document every pre eapi
> portage has had (at least 8 off the top of my head), the previous
> iterations of prefix, and realistically, the exherbo format should
> some user manage to install an exheres-0 build into a gentoo box.
> This *is* the case- it's applying the same logic you're using for
> trying to keep kdebuild-1 in.
Er, no. None of those have ever been published, documented standards.
> What I find pointless about this discussion is this notion that
> because you jammed kdebuild into the official eapi doc, the pms team
> in it's current incarnation is responsible for keeping kdebuild
> around and cleaning up that mess.
No no no. Because the Gentoo PMS project, at the request of the Gentoo
KDE project, included support for one of their published EAPIs, the
Gentoo PMS project would be irresponsible to just remove it without
ensuring that it won't affect users.
> 2) write a converter. As said, since it's only *rm phases you really
> have to care about for allowing it to be removed by other managers,
> this isn't incredibly hard- further, full metadata rewrite is
> probably possible w/ eapi2 bits.
Writing a converter is more work than a simple phased removal.
> That solves it technically, rather then just ignoring it and
> pretending we won't have this exact discussion a year later w/ the
> same claims as to why it can't be removed.
A year later, we can easily have had kdebuild-1 removed in a
> Additional thing- note the compromise I mentioned, adding into PMS
> urls directing users where to go for experimental format information,
> or to get at old/dead official eapis. If they can't catch a
> paragraph upfront telling them where to look, it's their problem.
More work than just doing it properly.
> Finally, and I admit this is a bit barbed- any user who install this
> eapi should've known it was experimental and that they could get
> support for it for paludis only. If the user thought it was someday
> going to become an official eapi, that's the user/managers problem,
> not ours.
kdebuild-1 was not experimental. It was an official Gentoo KDE project
> More importantly, pms's responsibility/purpose for gentoo is
> presenting users with documentation on the *official* eapis- forcing
> kdebuild bits into that doc misleads users into thinking kdebuild is
> official, thus supported. User confusion there is, and has been,
> rather annoying.
And at the time, the Gentoo KDE project considered kdebuild-1 to be an