| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 13/01/14 12:02, Steven J. Long wrote: |
| 5 |
> Yeah but it already outshines under the hood: all you're talking |
| 6 |
> about is EAPI and radhermit is working on it; I'm sure he and |
| 7 |
> dol-sen would be happy for more help as well, so long as it's |
| 8 |
> supportive. ISTR TomWij is involved too. |
| 9 |
I know all this. But until the EAPI is brought up to date, I don't see a |
| 10 |
lot of devs migrating their work there. (Kudos to radhermit for his |
| 11 |
work.) Furthermore, bringing the EAPI up to date is not of ignorable |
| 12 |
complexity. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Updating both in parallel isn't hard: once pkgcore is up to EAPI-5, |
| 15 |
> EAPI-6 isn't that much work (mostly bash afair.) |
| 16 |
If it is trivial: show us the code. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> At that point, put portage into feature-freeze, and only bugfix it. |
| 19 |
> Call a hiatus on new EAPIs for 6 months and put all effort into |
| 20 |
> making damn sure pkgcore is a drop-in replacement. |
| 21 |
I don't see this happening as it stands right now. Let's revisit this |
| 22 |
when pkgcore is more up to date. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> There's certainly enough devs to do that, and definitely enough |
| 25 |
> interest in finally moving to portage-NG. |
| 26 |
These are two big statements, and I'm not convinced either of them |
| 27 |
holds true. Feel free to gather data on the latter. (The former is not |
| 28 |
immediately quantifiable.) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
- -- |
| 31 |
Alexander |
| 32 |
alexander@××××××.net |
| 33 |
http://plaimi.net/~alexander |
| 34 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 35 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
| 36 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlLT290ACgkQRtClrXBQc7XeuAD+Jj4Oj73br8pvcKdkDSVFfE3J |
| 39 |
tG6ajS3wzQHNmkbxWPoA+gMVyzgm5SSDRAjqHysocgvvDe6Xwa2CA+/ON98u+2xs |
| 40 |
=mBxD |
| 41 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives