| 1 |
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:41:13 -0500 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > Well, that package maintainers are called developers on Gentoo isn't |
| 7 |
> > helping the interpretation here; regardless of how one defines |
| 8 |
> > those, both maintainers and PM implementers have to be taken into |
| 9 |
> > account here. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > From quick thoughts the latter are a bit more affected than the |
| 12 |
> > former, but perhaps Patrick can highlight what he sees as a burden. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> You would think, but the reason I raised the question was that |
| 15 |
> historically every time this has come up the package manager |
| 16 |
> maintainers usually chime in and say that they don't consider it a |
| 17 |
> problem. I want to do whatever I can to make them happy since we are |
| 18 |
> so desperately in need of more of them, but... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
From my limited look at the code I've done so far in the small bit of |
| 21 |
repoman work on the Portage team, as detailed in another mail I just |
| 22 |
sent to you on this ML, I wouldn't consider it as a problem just now. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
We for example have /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage/eapi.py to easily deal |
| 25 |
with it, it's just that such checks would drop in that file and across |
| 26 |
the Portage source code when the versions listed in those checks are no |
| 27 |
longer used. It's currently reasonable to have this amount of checks, |
| 28 |
but imagine it growing to what you would need for 10 versions; that'd be |
| 29 |
a different story, but perhaps it is too early to wonder about this now. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
With kind regards, |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 35 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 38 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 39 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives