| 1 |
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:16:23 -0700 |
| 4 |
> "Alec Warner" <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> As far as could be determined by the members at the meeting there no |
| 6 |
>> compelling examples in Gentoo who to change or add global scope |
| 7 |
>> functions in future EAPIs. As such those problems as stated are not |
| 8 |
>> in scope for Gentoo because Gentoo is not attempting to do those |
| 9 |
>> things at this time. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> You mean you don't want per-category/package eclasses, or eclasses that |
| 12 |
> can indicate that they only work with some EAPIs, or eclasses that can |
| 13 |
> indicate that they're being used incorrectly, or the death of |
| 14 |
> EXPORT_FUNCTIONS? All of these have been discussed as desirable future |
| 15 |
> extensions. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I don't require any of those things, but maybe other people do and If |
| 18 |
so; they should probably come |
| 19 |
to the meeting or otherwise make themselves known because they were |
| 20 |
not at the previous meeting. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The GLEP as written is not convincing; it doesn't say 'I am trying to |
| 23 |
do X with Gentoo and cannot because of this |
| 24 |
restriction.' It says 'In the future someone may want to do X and |
| 25 |
they won't be able to because of this restriction so lets |
| 26 |
try to remove the restriction now.' This is an admirable goal mind |
| 27 |
you; but it is my opinion that there are more concrete features |
| 28 |
that we could implement for benefits now rather than talk about what could be. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I chatted briefly with peper on IRC about this (as he was the original |
| 31 |
GLEP author) so when he gets time he said he had some examples to |
| 32 |
provide. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> -- |
| 36 |
> Ciaran McCreesh |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives