| 1 |
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 15:37:44 +0200 |
| 2 |
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > About suggesting new item (like forcing rebuilding of other |
| 4 |
> > > packages as discussed some days ago and crosscompile support |
| 5 |
> > > suggested by Tommy today), I guess we need to get them voted by |
| 6 |
> > > the council? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > No. You need to get a draft diff for PMS written, along with an |
| 9 |
> > implementation in a package mangler of your choice and proof that it |
| 10 |
> > works in practice. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Umm, this way to work makes any suggestion for future eapis to be |
| 13 |
> accepted only if they come from people able to prepare that |
| 14 |
> implementation in the package manager their prefer and, then, be |
| 15 |
> stalled more and more time :| |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It's more of a filter against people saying "EAPI 5 should do blah!" |
| 18 |
where no-one knows what blah actually is (and if you ask five people |
| 19 |
you get six answers) or how it should be implemented, or whether the |
| 20 |
implementation in any way works. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The classic example is multilib: people keep saying "EAPI n+1 should do |
| 23 |
multilib!" where no-one has any idea what "do multilib" means. If you |
| 24 |
asked the Council to vote on that, they'd probably say yes, because |
| 25 |
multilib is good, but it's like politicians voting to say that by next |
| 26 |
year everyone should own a flying car. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Your "forcing rebuild" is similar: the hard part is figuring out the |
| 29 |
problem. You may *think* you know what the issue is, but other people |
| 30 |
think it is something else, and in fact everyone is pretty much wrong |
| 31 |
on the whole thing. Until you've a) worked out what exactly you're |
| 32 |
tryin to solve (no-one has done this yet), b) worked out exactly what |
| 33 |
a solution is, and c) given the solution extensive testing on real |
| 34 |
packages to ensure that step a) didn't miss anything, talking to the |
| 35 |
Council is a waste of everyone's time. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
You are of course welcome to try to persuade someone else to do the |
| 38 |
work for you. That's what has happened for a good chunk of the current |
| 39 |
EAPI 5 list, and it's been the same for earlier EAPIs. But what you |
| 40 |
shouldn't do is expect a feature to be introduced just based upon a two |
| 41 |
sentence description, because the best outcome there is that we end up |
| 42 |
giving you something approximately related to what you wanted... |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives