From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6137139694 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2017 21:52:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1AFCD21C07F; Sun, 9 Apr 2017 21:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C61C621C043 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2017 21:52:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (c-98-218-46-55.hsd1.md.comcast.net [98.218.46.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mjo) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 98838340BEA for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2017 21:52:49 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Reverse use of Python/Ruby versions To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: From: Michael Orlitzky Message-ID: <1c3c5bd1-a697-25fd-4851-2f850b2ba06a@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 17:52:44 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 553a33cd-85ca-4da5-a119-964ee8fe20d1 X-Archives-Hash: 1266625aeb9a509047466f22ad40a8d0 On 04/09/2017 12:15 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > Not sure if this is practical, it may be less work if the use of > Python and Ruby versions ( maybe others ) is reversed. Rather than > adding all the versions that the ebuild supports. What if it only > included versions it did not support? Even if this would work better, it would require retraining all developers, completely rewriting several eclasses, tons of documentation, and a few thousand ebuilds. No one's going to jump on that bandwagon without a proof-of-concept that works much better than what we have now.