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: 1350 bytes --]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:08:45 -0500
Jim Ramsay <lack@gentoo.org> wrote:
> But when you say "worth the complexity", I'm not exactly sure what
> your standards of "worthiness" are.
> 
> I don't think the human cognition of a 2-level versioning scheme is
> that tricky, so I assume you must mean complexity in the internals of
> package managers - but this should just be a Simple Matter Of
> Programming.

People are struggling with the one level scheme we have now. We're
already having to produce fancy tables and summaries for new EAPIs
because people can't keep track of when features came along. Two levels
just means no-one will remember any of it.

For the package manager, it's just a bit of added mess, not any major
difficulty.

> (Of course I have no idea if people actually would accept a two-level
> EAPI any more than glep-55 as-is... I just think it addresses the
> concerns I've heard in this thread in a way that does not break
> the valid solutions to real problems presented in glep-55)

People are opposed to 55 because of a knee-jerk reaction against
changing file extensions and against doing anything that comes from
the great Satan and all his little minions... If you're going to throw
an equivalent but supposedly compromising solution at people, go for
'.eapi3.eb' instead.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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