| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
>> Why exactly does EAPI=1 need to be rushed? |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Because the tree needed the functionality in question several years ago. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> I thought the whole point of 0 was allowing a base, so that new stuff |
| 7 |
>> could be developed while guaranteeing certain behaviour. What's the |
| 8 |
>> hurry? It's not like there are systems b0rking or anything because |
| 9 |
>> EAPI=1 isn't around; |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Except there are. Hence why we want EAPI 1 in the short term, not |
| 12 |
> several years from now. The stuff that will take longer can go into a |
| 13 |
> later EAPI. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
Man here we go again: I spend a lot of time helping and being helped by |
| 16 |
other gentoo users. *There has been no significant system b0rkage for |
| 17 |
nearly a year* *QA is getting better not worse* and *the gentoo development |
| 18 |
process works* |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
You may have your issues with the gentoo dev team, but spreading this kinda |
| 21 |
FUD is outta line imo. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
3 months for specification of EAPI 1 after a year for EAPI 0 is not exactly |
| 24 |
moving slowly. And there are clearly other viewpoints as to what is needed. |
| 25 |
Personally speaking, I'd like to find out what those are, as it's both |
| 26 |
instructive for me, and better for the distro I use. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If there really are problems with *portage* those are not your concern: |
| 29 |
Paludis users presumably don't get that kinda b0rkage so all you need to do |
| 30 |
is /wait/ and let the technical superiority of your product win the |
| 31 |
argument. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives