| 1 |
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:58:23 +0100 |
| 2 |
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:41:13 -0500 |
| 4 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> |
| 6 |
> > wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > Well, that package maintainers are called developers on Gentoo |
| 8 |
> > > isn't helping the interpretation here; regardless of how one |
| 9 |
> > > defines those, both maintainers and PM implementers have to be |
| 10 |
> > > taken into account here. |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > From quick thoughts the latter are a bit more affected than the |
| 13 |
> > > former, but perhaps Patrick can highlight what he sees as a |
| 14 |
> > > burden. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > You would think, but the reason I raised the question was that |
| 17 |
> > historically every time this has come up the package manager |
| 18 |
> > maintainers usually chime in and say that they don't consider it a |
| 19 |
> > problem. I want to do whatever I can to make them happy since we |
| 20 |
> > are so desperately in need of more of them, but... |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> From my limited look at the code I've done so far in the small bit of |
| 23 |
> repoman work on the Portage team, as detailed in another mail I just |
| 24 |
> sent to you on this ML, I wouldn't consider it as a problem just now. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> We for example have /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage/eapi.py to easily |
| 27 |
> deal with it, it's just that such checks would drop in that file and |
| 28 |
> across the Portage source code when the versions listed in those |
| 29 |
> checks are no longer used. It's currently reasonable to have this |
| 30 |
> amount of checks, but imagine it growing to what you would need for |
| 31 |
> 10 versions; that'd be a different story, but perhaps it is too early |
| 32 |
> to wonder about this now. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Removing EAPIs doesn't help you: you still need to be able to uninstall |
| 35 |
things. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives