Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Training points for users interested in helping out with ebuild development

[Thomas Anderson]

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:35:41AM +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 May 2009 00:31:36 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 May 2009 23:17:32 +0100
> >
> > George Prowse <george.prowse@×××××.com> wrote:
> > > An equilibrium seems to have been reached which currently works.
> >
> > An equilibrium has been reached, agreed, but that it works is up for
> > debate. There is a strong argument to be made that preserving the
> > equilibrium will keep Gentoo the way it is now -- delivering at best the
> > same user experience now that it was several years ago, in an
> > increasingly difficult and more competitive environment.
>
> Then there's package management. (Your favourite topic, I guess, because you
> want to keep complexifying it until one needs a PhD to write an ebuild [which,
> in a way, would be quite ironic])

Same as Petteri here, new EAPIs make ebuilds easier to write for me, not
harder.

>
> And now you say "delivering the same user experience" ...
> ... ignoring the tons of new features and things that have happened. You're
> being dishonest again in an attempt to make us look like baboons. Two thirds
> of the new features grew on your compost heap (and half of these features we
> didn't even want, but after about three years of you pushing them at every
> opportunity people are getting so demotivated that they are willing to let you
> have one feature if you just STOP WHINING for more than 10 minutes)[GLEP55,
> for example - there's about 8 people that want it, but those keep bringing it
> up at EVERY opportunity. It's still a fundamentally stupid idea that doesn't
> solve any problems, and the claim that it might solve problems we have in the
> future is quite asinine because we can do the changes then, _if_ the
> theoretical problems actually become an issue, without messing up most
> everything now for some hypothetical gain that has not even conclusively shown
> ...]

I'd wager there are more than 8 people that want it, but even so, just
because not many people realize its usefulness doesn't mean it's a bad
proposal(unpopular decisions != bad decisions, in other words).

The changes we want are something that we want soon, but there's nothing
we can do until something solving the problem GLEP 55 is solving is
approved.

Also, please stop the "compost heap", "whining" etc. It's tantamount to
a personal attack.

>
> - We're not in a bad shape, dying or dead. We don't intend to.

Few empires "intend" to die, but I'd agree that we're not dying/dead ;-).

>
> - More complex doesn't mean better.
> "Perfection isn't when you cannot add more things but when there are none left
> to remove" or how that quote went. You know what I mean. Rewriting the init
> scripts in XML might be what some call progress (now you can verify 'em!), but
> it doesn't actually add any value and complexifies things in a bad way

I've not seen anything complexifying things for no benefit recently.
Care to mention those?
>
> - Repeating a lie can make it true, if you repeat it long enough. Worst case
> you just have to wait until everyone who disagrees dies of old age.
>

Most things people are calling "lies" I'd call more "opinions that I
disagree with". We really do dramatize and bring too much importance on
disagreements ;-). Also, I imagine you're talking about glep54/glep55
none of which there have been lies spread by their proponents(that I've
seen).

-- 
---------
Thomas Anderson
Gentoo Developer
/////////
Areas of responsibility:
AMD64, Secretary to the Gentoo Council
---------