1 |
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:36:49 +0000 Steve Long |
2 |
<slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
3 |
> Stephen Bennett wrote: |
4 |
> >> My understanding was that the portage team can't move forward with |
5 |
> >> a new version until EAPI0 is done? |
6 |
> > They can't move forward with changes that break ebuild compatibility |
7 |
> > until EAPI-0 is documented and EAPI-1 can start to be defined. |
8 |
> > That's not to say that user-side changes which don't affect the |
9 |
> > ebuild interface can't happen. |
10 |
> Ah ok. |
11 |
> Well, given the state of the portage code, I doubt it's worth |
12 |
> starting anew until EAPI0 is done, since clearly the team have to do |
13 |
> maintenance and improvements in the meanwhile, as so many ppl depend |
14 |
> on portage working right. |
15 |
|
16 |
A good design won't be strongly tied in to any particular EAPI related |
17 |
information. It should be easy to make any sane changes required for |
18 |
future EAPIs. Any rewrite that fails in this requirement will just run |
19 |
into the same problems later on. |
20 |
|
21 |
That is, of course, vague, fuzzy and unquantifiable. Some things are |
22 |
like that. |
23 |
|
24 |
As a simple test for this, adding support for another package format |
25 |
seems to be a good start... GNU CRAN is the route Paludis happened to |
26 |
take first, partly because someone wanted it and partly because CPAN is |
27 |
inconsistent and poorly documented... Point is, if your package manager |
28 |
has no problems introducing a completely new format, it likely won't |
29 |
have problems with EAPI changes. |
30 |
|
31 |
(Now, as a design issue, whether that means making everything fully |
32 |
replaceable from the start or making sane things replaceable possible |
33 |
with core code changes as appropriate is up for debate, and probably |
34 |
depends more upon language features like static checking than anything |
35 |
else... In any case, starting out as a wrapper for ebuilds is what led |
36 |
to Portage's current state -- it was fine for its original purpose, |
37 |
but not much else.) |
38 |
|
39 |
> Also, I thought one of the main benefits was making things easier for |
40 |
> ebuild devs? Ciaran was himself disdainful of UI improvements. |
41 |
|
42 |
There's a difference between UI improvements like FEATURES=candy and UI |
43 |
improvements like ability to do dependency-based uninstalls (merely one |
44 |
example). UI improvements that improve user experience substantially |
45 |
are fine. Minor UI improvements are good too, but not when they're |
46 |
being touted as significant achievements. |
47 |
|
48 |
-- |
49 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
50 |
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
51 |
Web : http://ciaranm.org/ |
52 |
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ |