| 1 |
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:27:32 -0700 |
| 2 |
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> As for 'blatant hack', if you've got no users nor preexisting ebuild |
| 4 |
> data, you can design whatever you want- it's quite easy to call |
| 5 |
> things blatant hacks if you can design things from scratch and not |
| 6 |
> worry about compatibility. This is a form of armchair quarterbacking. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
No it isn't, since we've proposed a working alternative that doesn't |
| 9 |
have any of the defects that EAPI in its current form does. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> EAPI did not have that luxury however, thus a pragmatic solution was |
| 12 |
> choosen. I've heard a lot of bitching from various folk about EAPI |
| 13 |
> over the years, but the fact is even with it's flaws (both in |
| 14 |
> process, people involved, and in original constraints) it still has |
| 15 |
> been rolling changes out- all the while without requiring people to |
| 16 |
> rewrite ebuilds from scratch, or continually track an unversioned |
| 17 |
> format that changes semi-monthly. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
You appear to be confusing "providing a better replacement that we can |
| 20 |
use immediately that doesn't have any of these problems" with |
| 21 |
"bitching". |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> It'd be nice if people were to remember that rather than spending |
| 24 |
> their time bitching about it. Hindsight, I'd have done a few things |
| 25 |
> differently, but that's the nature of hindsight- specifically I |
| 26 |
> would've used an eapi function rather than var. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
That's ok. We can migrate to an even better solution now. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> Whether said people like it or not, it was a known decision at the |
| 31 |
> time of creation- including the scenario under discussion. One thing |
| 32 |
> you'll note about my posts is that I'll list out what is possible, |
| 33 |
> and state what should/shouldn't be done. Just because I personally |
| 34 |
> think something is complete shit doesn't mean I go telling folk it's |
| 35 |
> impossible. There's a difference between opinion and fact- you're |
| 36 |
> excusing opinion stated as fact, which is not correct. Fact is, this |
| 37 |
> technique does work even if certain folk have another approach they |
| 38 |
> want instead. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
The *fact* is, you can't use new version formats with any of your |
| 41 |
proposals, and using new global scope functionality or new bash |
| 42 |
functionality introduces all kinds of nasty difficulties and arbitrary |
| 43 |
restrictions of which developers have to be intimately aware. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives