1 |
Zac Medico wrote: |
2 |
>>>> Fine, but the EAPI can still be used to imply that some other |
3 |
functions may or |
4 |
>>>> may not be available. |
5 |
>>> Not really. Via moving parts of the format into gentoo-x86 it's |
6 |
>>> implciitly setting it up such that whatever tree portage is working |
7 |
>>> against now defines EAPI. |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> Sounds whacky, but think it through; instead of trying to verify that |
10 |
>>> 3 package managers are EAPI compliant, it's now dependant on the |
11 |
>>> environment the tree defines, as such the tree can redefine the env |
12 |
>>> without bumping the EAPI. |
13 |
>>> |
14 |
>>> Yes that's stupid to do, but moving the format into the tree enables |
15 |
>>> it. Theres a reason no other package format has their actual format |
16 |
>>> definitions (env setup in our case) shoved into the repo, and thats |
17 |
>>> one of them. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Incompatible changes for a given EAPI specification are simply unacceptable. |
20 |
> People really should know better than that. If not, educate them. |
21 |
> |
22 |
|
23 |
See this is a bad idea. If you give them a hand, they take the whole arm... |
24 |
|
25 |
You don't presently export a ton of stuff to developers for their |
26 |
tinkering (bashrc aside, that affects them locally only). The bad part |
27 |
being you get to maintain it; the good part being you also have full |
28 |
control of what goes on. Once that control is gone you can't really |
29 |
guarantee much...."Just educate them" means that 50% of developers will |
30 |
have NFC what EAPI means and the other 50% will break it because it |
31 |
helps make their job easier. Just as when you add functionality now |
32 |
with no EAPI bump; it often gets used immediately (although thank god |
33 |
most people are smart enough to add the correct DEPEND statements). You |
34 |
give up that control and you end up with another large area of the tree |
35 |
to QA and no real way to do so. |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |