| 1 |
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:49:31 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| No need for a glep as far as portage support goes anymore than Ciaran |
| 4 |
| needs a glep to change or add syntax highlighting in vim. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
The difference is, Vim syntax scripts are well established, and there |
| 7 |
aren't any design issues to solve. Multiple repository support clearly |
| 8 |
*isn't* obvious, because the solution you've described is the wrong one. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
| There doesn't need to be a debate. This whole proposal doesn't care |
| 11 |
| about portage compatibility whatsoever and it's exactly this style of |
| 12 |
| thinking that slows down portage development (which everybody loves |
| 13 |
| to complain about so much). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Sure it does. It cares about the way Portage is currently, and it cares |
| 16 |
about any reasonable future Portage changes. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
| As I said already, there will immediately be a bug asking for overlay |
| 19 |
| support. Portage already supports multiple in a form whether anybody |
| 20 |
| likes it or not. How they are supported and how they will change |
| 21 |
| should be of no concern to the glep. What should be of concern is |
| 22 |
| establishing a robust API between the readers and portage such that |
| 23 |
| future changes won't cause breakage. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Ok, give me a list of every single future enhancement to Portage and |
| 26 |
I'll make sure the GLEP will be compatible with them. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain) |
| 30 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 31 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives