| 1 |
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:17:32 +0100 |
| 2 |
Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Except there are. Hence why we want EAPI 1 in the short term, not |
| 4 |
> > several years from now. The stuff that will take longer can go into |
| 5 |
> > a later EAPI. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> Man here we go again: I spend a lot of time helping and being helped |
| 8 |
> by other gentoo users. *There has been no significant system b0rkage |
| 9 |
> for nearly a year* *QA is getting better not worse* and *the gentoo |
| 10 |
> development process works* |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> You may have your issues with the gentoo dev team, but spreading this |
| 13 |
> kinda FUD is outta line imo. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
You don't know what QA problems EAPI 1 will solve, do you? It's not FUD |
| 16 |
at all. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> 3 months for specification of EAPI 1 after a year for EAPI 0 is not |
| 19 |
> exactly moving slowly. And there are clearly other viewpoints as to |
| 20 |
> what is needed. Personally speaking, I'd like to find out what those |
| 21 |
> are, as it's both instructive for me, and better for the distro I use. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
We're not talking specification. We're talking implementation time. |
| 24 |
Many of the things likely to be in EAPI 1 were needed years ago, and |
| 25 |
the tree has huge problems as a result. The simplest example is the KDE |
| 26 |
and Qt dependency hell that's come about as a result of not having slot |
| 27 |
deps. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> If there really are problems with *portage* those are not your |
| 30 |
> concern: Paludis users presumably don't get that kinda b0rkage so all |
| 31 |
> you need to do is /wait/ and let the technical superiority of your |
| 32 |
> product win the argument. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
*Of course* Paludis users will get the same b0rkage that Portage users |
| 35 |
do, since it's using the same ebuilds. Please refrain from contributing |
| 36 |
if you don't understand the issues at hand. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives