| 1 |
Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
>> And that still leaves the issue of EAPI 0 being the preexisting |
| 3 |
>> implementation. What exactly is so wrong with that? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Which implementation exactly? Portage isn't frozen, the behavioris more |
| 6 |
> less constantly changing. Another issue are the things that just work by |
| 7 |
> accident or only exist for legacy reasons, you don't really want those |
| 8 |
> in a formal spec aimed at future developments. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
Sure, the moving target thing was worrying me too. But ciaran has actually |
| 11 |
said that it'll be basically what portage should be doing atm (ie ignoring |
| 12 |
bugs.) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I don't see what's wrong with documenting legacy behaviour, so long as it is |
| 15 |
marked as such, or is in a legacy doc- not the spec used for future dev. |
| 16 |
But still, this is all moot as the work is in hand. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> Also in general it's easier to extend a spec than to restrict it later |
| 19 |
> on, no matter what the spec is about. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
No argument there. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives