Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1417 bytes --]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:59:39 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > ...and it means we can't change name or version rules.
> 
> And has such a case come to light recently where it was *essential* to
> do so? Why solve problems that don't exist?

Because they do exist, which is why name and version rules have been
changed the hard way at least twice previously. The version format is
still considerably less flexible than what upstreams use, and a lot of
the current limitations on its format are purely historical.

> > ...and it means we can't make arbitrary format changes.
> 
> What? Why are we over-engineering this? Does anyone seriously want to
> convert ebuilds to XML? I honestly think anything beyond incremental
> changes is not relevant for Gentoo

You appear to be confusing arbitrary format changes with doing a Zynot.
The two are not the same.

> > Developers already have to stop and think and consult the
> > conveniently available table of features for EAPIs. By splitting
> > the EAPI concept in two you're doubling the amount of data to be
> > learnt.
> 
> That's a documentation problem.

No, it's a design problem. Good design looks for ways to minimise the
amount of unnecessary arbitrary information the user has to remember.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]