| 1 |
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:25:27 -0500 |
| 2 |
Jim Ramsay <lack@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > ...and it means we can't change name or version rules. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > ...and it means over doubling the best possible time to work out a |
| 6 |
> > dependency tree in the common case where the metadata cache is |
| 7 |
> > valid. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > ...and it means we can't make arbitrary format changes. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Those would all land in the category of "backwards compatibility" |
| 12 |
> mentioned below, as they would all break current sourcing rules. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
No, they're also future issues. Without glep 55, every time they come |
| 15 |
up we have to go through the whole mess again. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> > Developers already have to stop and think and consult the |
| 18 |
> > conveniently available table of features for EAPIs. By splitting |
| 19 |
> > the EAPI concept in two you're doubling the amount of data to be |
| 20 |
> > learnt. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I would think that this is a very small cost, and the benefit would be |
| 23 |
> (I hope) that more people would agree on the solution and then we can |
| 24 |
> go forward. Is that not a valid consideration? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I'd expect to see changes that would warrant a major bump in every |
| 27 |
other EAPI or so anyway, so it's not really worth the complexity. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives