From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-34538-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1Lc2od-0000m7-Sc
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:19:40 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D0786E0548;
Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:19:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-fx0-f161.google.com (mail-fx0-f161.google.com [209.85.220.161])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 793A9E0548
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:19:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so2968127fxm.10
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:19:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject
:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version
:content-type;
bh=pzxW0KuOV8GObsfmJxogUkjPRlpI04KL3NTanFbcTw0=;
b=uUezKuRF/YbefU7HJxRKmH3ne9yAZclZUaC06abM2vU8fCgJ57K2/B/IdxQehKZ/8N
UUThFxQxz0ADczZODP5qwWG+orZQc0ZDkwYksHVjlsB1Ie8S7EIfQqP+nVw7f5HZUz19
OKmx8G/rIfaWpJV+qggHJMyE6L6GiXX3c2Tn4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer
:mime-version:content-type;
b=LQgsWjtpCRJDg6bj5h/z6SKPU8l3Wdx5+2JbvUIuaJMjAtbmhwPWgIea9qMizqv2nV
Z7XFYe578YKIbWIoDOiDuepziJe3U8yrMj4qAOzw73WD3OxEGdhmFE7xuTNjNi/pyESV
NfVBHTYkOdclZCS+Ox19qcGAri2jCz8nzYQAc=
Received: by 10.102.247.4 with SMTP id u4mr22176muh.104.1235503177204;
Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:19:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from snowcone (92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.sgyl.blueyonder.co.uk [92.235.187.79])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y7sm19929475ugc.4.2009.02.24.11.19.36
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:19:36 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:19:28 +0000
From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council]
Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009)
Message-ID: <20090224191928.6b9e52db@snowcone>
In-Reply-To: <20090224140845.73053f4c@vrm378-02.vrm378.am.mot.com>
References: <1234257125.18160.2016.camel@localhost>
<1234450419.20950.2.camel@localhost>
<20090212160045.GB3642@comet>
<20090212161644.GD3642@comet>
<20090212162103.256b003f@snowcone>
<20090212171055.GA3652@comet>
<20090212172109.778fb268@snowcone>
<20090212173743.GD3652@comet>
<20090212180350.0d9a9df5@snowcone>
<1235037961.13198.779.camel@localhost>
<20090219125124.33eaa66c@snowcone>
<1235077892.13198.1923.camel@localhost>
<20090222171658.278ae167@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca>
<49A1E1CB.1000806@gentoo.org>
<20090222234800.29d64b8d@snowcone>
<49A206A7.3050604@gentoo.org>
<49A39CE7.4010201@gentoo.org>
<49A3AAA1.6080207@gentoo.org>
<49A3B947.2020907@gentoo.org>
<49A3D0F6.6080307@gentoo.org>
<49A41656.7020100@gentoo.org>
<20090224155654.602f6c88@snowcone>
<20090224122527.1e800f30@vrm378-02.vrm378.am.mot.com>
<20090224182023.5d858986@snowcone>
<20090224140845.73053f4c@vrm378-02.vrm378.am.mot.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.14.7; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/fMeMXh=g6h0Z9URCDBumUwW";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1
X-Archives-Salt: aafa291a-a9a9-4f0e-88a4-c034bea1b616
X-Archives-Hash: 18bc445ae4146d77afad209bcb821318
--Sig_/fMeMXh=g6h0Z9URCDBumUwW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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.
>=20
> 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.
--=20
Ciaran McCreesh
--Sig_/fMeMXh=g6h0Z9URCDBumUwW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkmkSEMACgkQ96zL6DUtXhHf+wCfW+p1wq41nYhls3w0E6tr9Q0b
4xsAoJXVw7Ju9MB/PeLkJYuqDAqXxAiP
=EdbT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Sig_/fMeMXh=g6h0Z9URCDBumUwW--