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: 1201 bytes --]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:25:27 -0500
Jim Ramsay <lack@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > ...and it means we can't change name or version rules.
> > 
> > ...and it means over doubling the best possible time to work out a
> > dependency tree in the common case where the metadata cache is
> > valid.
> > 
> > ...and it means we can't make arbitrary format changes.
> 
> Those would all land in the category of "backwards compatibility"
> mentioned below, as they would all break current sourcing rules.

No, they're also future issues. Without glep 55, every time they come
up we have to go through the whole mess again.

> > 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.
>  
> I would think that this is a very small cost, and the benefit would be
> (I hope) that more people would agree on the solution and then we can
> go forward. Is that not a valid consideration?

I'd expect to see changes that would warrant a major bump in every
other EAPI or so anyway, so it's not really worth the complexity.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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