| 1 |
Tomáš Chvátal wrote: |
| 2 |
> On čtvrtek 08 Říjen 2009, 23:34:10 Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Even this is wrong because: |
| 4 |
> Hi |
| 5 |
> ... |
| 6 |
>> betelgeuse@pena ~ $ portageq metadata / ebuild sys-libs/glibc-2.2.5-r10 |
| 7 |
>> IUSE nls |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> For most packages old versions are not kept around so just doing |
| 10 |
>>> =cat/foo-X.Y[use] is fine and EAPI 3 is not needed. I haven't come |
| 11 |
>> across a case that couldn't be done with EAPI 2 yet. Granted the atoms |
| 12 |
>> can be a bit cleaner with EAPI 3 but considering how much zmedico slacks |
| 13 |
>> in implementing it, it's best to do migrating now with EAPI 2 than EAPI |
| 14 |
>> 3 in the far future. |
| 15 |
> This is not exactly nice of you. And taking in account that you are actualy |
| 16 |
> the council member it makes me feel not entirely happy. |
| 17 |
> If we just simply take look onto this: |
| 18 |
> http://cia.vc/stats/author/zmedico/ |
| 19 |
> we can count that Zac commit something into portage every 3 hours. It does not |
| 20 |
> look entirely like slacking... |
| 21 |
> So you are basicaly proposing that maintaining the current codebase and |
| 22 |
> improving what we already have is less important than providing new features, |
| 23 |
> that is also not good. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I am not suggesting that the work Zac does is worthless. I am saying |
| 27 |
that implementing EAPI 3 is not a colossal amount of work and if it was |
| 28 |
a priority to him it would have already been implemented. If he feels |
| 29 |
offended by my original comment, I have no problem apologizing to him. |
| 30 |
Not having EAPI 3 implemented in general is not his fault as many of us |
| 31 |
have the needed skills to start helping on the Portage code base. The |
| 32 |
reality just is that he is the most likely person to implement it and as |
| 33 |
such a very important factor on when it happens. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Regards, |
| 36 |
Petteri |
Archives