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

[Marien Zwart]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 06:42:39PM +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:10:38 +0100
> Marien Zwart <marienz@g.o> wrote:
>
> > The
> > idea was to not get any messy portage quirks documented as required
> > standard behaviour, the risk here is that we'll now get paludis quirks
> > documented as required standard behaviour.
>
> Well, that'll come out in review later, I would expect.  I'll be
> surprised if the EAPI=0 spec Ciaran et. al. are working on just gets
> rubber-stamped without anyone looking!  This thread shows there are a
> number of people who know what they're talking about and will review it
> heavily when it is published as a draft, and the council are unlikely
> to approve something that doesn't have broad support.

I'd like to add some emphasis on "when it is published as a draft".
What makes me uncomfortable is that the intention seems to be to
release that draft simultaneously with the Paludis 1.0_pre mentioned
earlier, which is rather a lot later than I'd like to see it.

> With respect to having a small relatively closed group for initial
> drafting - it's a sensible way to do things in the early stages (it's
> not the only sensible way of course).

In the early stages: agreed. I just hope it will not be developed up
to "release candidate" status with little external (from non-Paludis
devs) input.

> If anyone doesn't like it,
> there's nothing stopping them from drafting their own in a different
> way. Indeed, having two strong drafts would be good, for finding
> idiosyncrasies from different perspectives.

If I considered myself qualified and had a lot of spare time I would
have started doing that by now :)

> I have to say, the few queries I've seen from Ciaran have been exactly
> what I would (happily) expect.

Yes, the *few* queries I've seen were ok. Perhaps there is simply much
less there yet than I think there is.

-- 
Marien.