Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:05:29
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5 by Pacho Ramos
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:55 +0200
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote:
> Also, if I remember correctly, Tommy asked for this some months ago, > you asked for what he sent some days ago and now you require more and > more work to delay things to be implemented.
I still haven't seen a clear description of exactly what should be changed and why. I've also not seen a description of exactly what problem is being solved, nor a discussion of the relative merits of implementing a solution to whatever that problem is. All I've seen is a mess of code that "gets it working" in Portage (which isn't the same as "implements it for Portage") and a big wall of text that contains lots that no-one needs to know and little of what's important. This needs to go through the GLEP process, and it needs a PMS diff. In case you're not aware, the first time Gentoo did multilib, it was done as a series of random changes to Portage that no-one really thought through or understood. As you can see, that didn't work...
> I also don't understand why Gentoo is forced to stick with old ways > of doing things until new EAPI is approved
That's not what's going on here. The issue is that there might be one person who understands what "the new way of doing things", but he hasn't told us what he thinks that is. Once we get a proper explanation, getting an EAPI out doesn't take long. The main problem here isn't even EAPI related. Ebuild developers don't even know what they'll be expected, required or able to do for multilib.
> while Exherbo is free to implement and use things like that special > way of handling DEPENDENCIES without waiting for any EAPI to be > accepted...
The DEPENDENCIES proposal predates Exherbo. Gentoo originally didn't have it because Portage couldn't implement it. Now it doesn't have it because it's too controversial to get it approved. Exherbo does have it because it was carefully discussed, compared to alternatives, planned out, tested, accepted by the expendable figurehead, and then rolled out.
> or maybe I am wrong and people is able to use any PM manager > compliant with EAPI on exherbo without issues?
If anyone ever manages to come up with another package mangler that can get close to implementing what Exherbo needs, then sure. -- Ciaran McCreesh


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5 Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5 Homer Parker <hparker@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] My wishlist for EAPI 5 Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>