Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About what would be included in EAPI5
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:30:02
Message-Id: 1339856949.7815.10.camel@belkin4
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About what would be included in EAPI5 by Ciaran McCreesh
El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 14:48 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 15:37:44 +0200 > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: > > > > About suggesting new item (like forcing rebuilding of other > > > > packages as discussed some days ago and crosscompile support > > > > suggested by Tommy today), I guess we need to get them voted by > > > > the council? > > > > > > No. You need to get a draft diff for PMS written, along with an > > > implementation in a package mangler of your choice and proof that it > > > works in practice. > > > > Umm, this way to work makes any suggestion for future eapis to be > > accepted only if they come from people able to prepare that > > implementation in the package manager their prefer and, then, be > > stalled more and more time :| > > It's more of a filter against people saying "EAPI 5 should do blah!" > where no-one knows what blah actually is (and if you ask five people > you get six answers) or how it should be implemented, or whether the > implementation in any way works. > > The classic example is multilib: people keep saying "EAPI n+1 should do > multilib!" where no-one has any idea what "do multilib" means. If you > asked the Council to vote on that, they'd probably say yes, because > multilib is good, but it's like politicians voting to say that by next > year everyone should own a flying car. > > Your "forcing rebuild" is similar: the hard part is figuring out the > problem. You may *think* you know what the issue is, but other people > think it is something else, and in fact everyone is pretty much wrong > on the whole thing. Until you've a) worked out what exactly you're > tryin to solve (no-one has done this yet), b) worked out exactly what > a solution is, and c) given the solution extensive testing on real > packages to ensure that step a) didn't miss anything, talking to the > Council is a waste of everyone's time. > > You are of course welcome to try to persuade someone else to do the > work for you. That's what has happened for a good chunk of the current > EAPI 5 list, and it's been the same for earlier EAPIs. But what you > shouldn't do is expect a feature to be introduced just based upon a two > sentence description, because the best outcome there is that we end up > giving you something approximately related to what you wanted... >
I thought last Zac suggestion of ABI_SLOT modified to use "SLOT=ble/bla" was clear enough and we reached a consensus. About what I am trying to solve, I have explained it multiple times in involved thread and won't repeat them once again.


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] About what would be included in EAPI5 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>