Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: EAPI spec (was Re: Re: let's clear things up (was Slacker archs))

[Marius Mauch]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:51:51 +0000
Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote:

> And irrespective
> of whether bug-wranglers have much to say, I'd still want them
> involved, as they deal with the ebuild bugs. As such they could well
> have ideas or viewpoints which would help. Even if they don't, it's
> how I'd do it for any software development project- not having
> testing/ QA/ bug fixers involved would leave me uneasy.

bug-wranglers don't really have much to do with QA, their main job is
just to assign bugs to the right people, and that doesn't have
anything to do with a package manager specification (at most you could
argue about the metadata.xml format, but even that is a long shot).

> I don't buy the stuff about needing the so-called independent
> implementation sorry. ``What people think is allowed rather than what
> is?'' The spec defines what is allowed. Period.

Thing is that if you only have a single implementation it's much easier
for errors to slip by due to implicit assumptions. Unless you write a
full compliance testsuite ...

> And that still leaves the issue of EAPI 0 being the preexisting
> implementation. What exactly is so wrong with that?

Which implementation exactly? Portage isn't frozen, the behavioris more
less constantly changing. Another issue are the things that just work by
accident or only exist for legacy reasons, you don't really want those
in a formal spec aimed at future developments.
Also in general it's easier to extend a spec than to restrict it later
on, no matter what the spec is about.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.