| 1 |
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:10:38 +0100 |
| 2 |
Marien Zwart <marienz@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> The |
| 5 |
> idea was to not get any messy portage quirks documented as required |
| 6 |
> standard behaviour, the risk here is that we'll now get paludis quirks |
| 7 |
> documented as required standard behaviour. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Well, that'll come out in review later, I would expect. I'll be |
| 10 |
surprised if the EAPI=0 spec Ciaran et. al. are working on just gets |
| 11 |
rubber-stamped without anyone looking! This thread shows there are a |
| 12 |
number of people who know what they're talking about and will review it |
| 13 |
heavily when it is published as a draft, and the council are unlikely |
| 14 |
to approve something that doesn't have broad support. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
With respect to having a small relatively closed group for initial |
| 17 |
drafting - it's a sensible way to do things in the early stages (it's |
| 18 |
not the only sensible way of course). If anyone doesn't like it, |
| 19 |
there's nothing stopping them from drafting their own in a different |
| 20 |
way. Indeed, having two strong drafts would be good, for finding |
| 21 |
idiosyncrasies from different perspectives. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I have to say, the few queries I've seen from Ciaran have been exactly |
| 24 |
what I would (happily) expect. Queries about whether some current |
| 25 |
portage behaviours should be classed as quirks or EAPI=0 behaviour, |
| 26 |
presumably because the answer has a large impact on the design of a |
| 27 |
package manager. A good example is the recent one about whether EAPI=0 |
| 28 |
should require that the ebuild be sourced in every phase or only once. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives