| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:44:43 -0500 |
| 3 |
> Doug Klima <cardoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> A better statement on your part would have been "We need to ensure |
| 6 |
>> compatibility for the greatest amount of users and requiring users to |
| 7 |
>> have a version of Portage released after January 4th when it's only |
| 8 |
>> the middle of February is not going to ensure the greatest |
| 9 |
>> compatibility. The previous policy was always 6 months between breaks |
| 10 |
>> like this." You're free to reword the above to however you see fit. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> You mean "the change should of course have been an EAPI bump". |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> hth, |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
As it's been explained to me by one of your fellow PMS developers, since |
| 18 |
EAPI=0 is not complete yet, there will be no work on further EAPIs until |
| 19 |
EAPI=0 is complete. Since this is the case and we still need to make |
| 20 |
changes, we must revert back to the previous policy with regard to changes. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I personally would love to see EAPI=0 published as a draft for users and |
| 23 |
developers to see. I feel that it's going to be one of those things |
| 24 |
that's going to be difficult to nail down do the the nature of a whole |
| 25 |
package manager being developed without any specifications . Writing a |
| 26 |
concrete set of specifications after the fact, which encompass every |
| 27 |
little nook and cranny, is a difficult and tedious process that requires |
| 28 |
testing every single code path. |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives