1 |
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Am 06.06.2010 15:44, schrieb Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis: |
3 |
>> 2010-06-06 12:40:28 Thomas Sachau napisaĆ(a): |
4 |
>>> Additionally, it should define the supported slots, something like this: |
5 |
>>> |
6 |
>>> SUPPORTED_RUBY_SLOTS="1.8 1.9" or |
7 |
>>> SUPPORTED_PYTHON_SLOTS="2.5 2.6 3.0 3.1" |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> Now the package manager should take those vars and convert them to some expanded USE vars like: |
10 |
>>> |
11 |
>>> RUBY_SLOTS="1.8 1.9" or |
12 |
>>> PYTHON_SLOTS="2.5 2.6 3.0 3.1" |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> We are already working on automatic generation of USE flags in python.eclass (in newer EAPIs). |
15 |
>> |
16 |
> |
17 |
> And why do you want to implement such code in every eclass? |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Whats wrong with implementing it on the package manager side once and reusing it for every |
20 |
> eclass/ebuild, which needs such code? |
21 |
|
22 |
I don't think arfrever thinks there is anything wrong. The main |
23 |
problem with implementing things in a package manager is time. Why |
24 |
have a big long discussion about something that takes years to agree |
25 |
on, implement, and then get into an approved stable EAPI when you can |
26 |
just stick things in your eclass and use them in a few weeks / months |
27 |
(this can be read as a mockery of what was done; I'm not mocking. |
28 |
Moving quickly is important in many cases and iteration of ideas and |
29 |
schemes are good.) |
30 |
|
31 |
I'm all for generalizing the current implementation where it makes |
32 |
sense; but I'm kinda tired of people bashing it because its not |
33 |
perfect; I don't think we can necessarily wait for 'perfectly |
34 |
designed' things every time (no matter what many implementors think.) |
35 |
|
36 |
-A |
37 |
|
38 |
> |
39 |
> -- |
40 |
> Thomas Sachau |
41 |
> |
42 |
> Gentoo Linux Developer |
43 |
> |
44 |
> |