| 1 |
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 16:37:15 +0200 |
| 2 |
Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 4:26 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > That still does not explain the reasons why this work was initiated. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > If there is any way to fix the current eclass, that should be preferred. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I tend to agree. Michał, let me first say I value the time you have |
| 10 |
> invested to make the eclasses better. However, at this point I have a |
| 11 |
> strong feeling that we have more people willing to write code to fix |
| 12 |
> things than we have people building consensus on what |
| 13 |
> features/policies/mechanisms we need to make it easy to write |
| 14 |
> high-quality ebuilds for Python/distutils. I would prefer discussions |
| 15 |
> on problems that the current ebuilds have and discussions on how to |
| 16 |
> solve them, not at the code level, but that the mechanism level. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The main issue: noone wants to even touch python.eclass or anything |
| 19 |
nearby. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The second issue: python-distutils-ng isn't good enough. It has too |
| 22 |
many things hard-wired. I think I have already pointed enough problems |
| 23 |
with it. Not that many people cared to respond. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
It's sad that people don't care to respond when you point the issues |
| 26 |
out but then complain when you do something to fix them. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Best regards, |
| 30 |
Michał Górny |
Archives